Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 22, 2022 - Depositions & Trials

03:40:55

Watch Live: Alex Jones Defamation Trial: Sandy Hook 'Hoax' Lawsuit - Connecticut Trial Day Seven

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	- Good morning, Marshall, good morning, everyone.
	Please be seated.
	All right, for the record, we are in week two, day seven of the Lafferty versus Jones matters.
	If council could please identify themselves for the record.
	Good morning, Your Honor.
	Good morning, Judge.
	So I understand we just need to reconfigure some seats, and as soon as that happens, we'll...
	- I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. - Okay. - It really is housekeeping. - You're right at K-Cups?
	No, no, no.
	You know, I can't...
	I seem to recall the court saying it didn't want disruption.
	I've got my associates coming in today.
	Are they going to be able to sit ahead of the bar?
	Even if they arrive during proceedings, they're covering various court proceedings elsewhere in the state.
	Nobody can come or go from this point forward.
	Okay, and then I'm asking for...
	I've been called in to jury selection for a murder trial in this building tomorrow at 2 o'clock.
	Just how that...
	No, or clone myself and make everybody twice as happy.
	I'm asking for some intervention there if I can get it.
	I alerted Ron.
	I don't know who the new presiding judge is here, criminally.
	Can you talk to them and see if you need to talk?
	Absolutely.
	Thank you.
	It shouldn't be an issue.
	You would hope.
	Right.
	All right.
	Any other matters before we proceed?
	- Nothing for the defense. - And is there fresh water in that picture?
	Don't get any dirty.
	Not quite yet.
	Who is the next witness going to be?
	All right.
	So, Attorney Padish, did you want me to canvass your client about the different things that we talked about, or in hindsight, is it not necessary?
	It's entirely up to you and your client.
	You know, Judge, I don't want to intrude into the attorney-client privilege, but as your officer, we believe we're prepared to go forward, and the court indicated that it might All right.
	Well, I can just ask your client.
	So, Mr. Jones, sir, there's certain areas.
	You can sit down.
	That's all right.
	Your attorney needs to stand when he objects, but you can be seated.
	There are certain areas that your attorney is well aware of as is opposing counsel.
	that are not going to be asked about and cannot be testified about and I'm more than happy to go over it's a very short list and I'm more than happy to go over it with you if you want me to but if you don't want me to that's fine too.
	I'm simply trying to avoid any issues in front of the jury.
	I don't want to have any unpleasantness there's no other way to put it so that's why I'm willing to do it if you want me to do it to do it but I don't have to do it.
	Okay, that's enough.
	The yes was enough.
	That's all I need to know.
	And the lawyers know not to ask you these questions, so the only way there would be a problem is if you gave a non-responsive answer.
	So if I just go over it briefly, I don't think we're going to have any problem at all.
	So, the lawyers are not going to ask you about, nor can you offer any testimony about, the plaintiff's settlements with the former defendants, Wolfgang Helbig and Corey Sklanka, the Soto v.
	Bushmaster case, and who the plaintiff did not sue.
	So, I understand you may not agree with those rulings, and this is just a yes or a no answer.
	Do you understand that you may not testify on those topics?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	So there can be no testimony and there's not going to be any questions obviously regarding the maximum amount of Sandy Hook coverage on your shows or the percentage or proportion of Sandy Hook coverage.
	Yes or no?
	Do you understand that that's not testimony that you can offer?
	You're not going to be asked about it and you can't offer it?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	You may not offer testimony and you're not going to be asked about whether you Substantially complied or you produced everything or that you challenged the basis for the default ruling.
	All of these issues may be the basis for an appeal, but they're not going to be asked, nor can you offer that testimony.
	Do you understand that?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Finally, the First Amendment is not an issue in this hearing in damages.
	No one is going to ask you about the First Amendment.
	This is not the appropriate forum for you to Offer that testimony.
	Do you understand that, sir?
	Yes.
	Is there anything that prevents you from understanding what we just talked about?
	I understand.
	As long as they don't ask those questions.
	Right.
	They're not going to ask you those questions.
	If they did, I mean, they're officers of the court and they understand the rulings, so they're not going to ask you those questions.
	I understand.
	Do you need, um, I'm happy to give you some time to speak with Attorney Pattis regarding these issues.
	If you need a little more time, Attorney Pattis, do you want a little more time?
	No, just as a convention to avoid speaking objections, if I think a question calls for that, may I just put it to court by objection, motion elimination, is that rather than just getting a speaking objection?
	I don't see why not.
	Attorney Matty?
	Rather than saying relevance that I'd like to alert the court simply by saying objection, motion and eliminate to avoid a speaking objection.
	On the topics that we just went through, we were referring to.
	And to avoid back and forth.
	Sure.
	Attorney Matty?
	That's fine, Your Honor.
	There we go.
	All right, are we ready for your jury or do you need a minute folks?
	If you want to, may I just have one moment?
	Take your time.
	Okay, two even before the first witness.
	Okay.
	Okay, so as fate would have it, this is the first morning in which we are having For whatever reason, we're not getting the Wi-Fi thing we've had this morning.
	We have a replacement.
	I can't show any exhibits until we get it.
	We will give you access to ours, John, since he's got it solved.
	Oh, new ones?
	Okay.
	Can we just, I apologize.
	Listen, it happens, and then maybe when we don't want you can talk to him.
	20 minutes.
	20 minutes.
	We've got to run back to the hotel.
	Come back.
	That's what it is.
	Today is the first day.
	It's going to be our maiden voyage and we've not had occasion to try it yet.
	Okay, what have you guys been doing?
	Ordering.
	Thank you.
	I just wanted to ask one.
	All right, so we are going to deal with some technical Wi-Fi issues, and as soon as they are resolved, we will begin.
	again so we will take a short recess.
	Thank you for your patience.
	Oh, no problem.
	And I know Ron just told the jury that we were dealing with some technical issues, and I'm sure they were fine.
	Okay.
	Anything else before we have a panel?
	Yes, Your Honor.
	We had another issue we wanted to raise before we get started.
	With regard to the court's canvas of Mr. Jones, there were some eliminated rulings that the court So we wanted to make sure that the court was aware of that.
	I am.
	Did you speak with Attorney Patis to see if there's anything that should be added by agreement?
	I did speak with Attorney Patis about the issues that the court had omitted from our perspective.
	I leave it to Attorney Patis again as the court...
	Do you want to just tell me what the issues are?
	So the issues that were omitted...
	The PQPR ruling, that there can be no evidence or argument that PQPR is a separate entity from free speech systems.
	Well, that question won't be asked, so I thought that was such a minor thing.
	Your Honor, it's certainly not our intent to ask those questions.
	So I would just say that if there's a non-responsive answer that Makes that statement.
	I'll just instruct the jury accordingly.
	Your Honor, okay.
	All right, Attorney Pettis, does that make sense to you, or would you prefer that I canvass Mr. Jones?
	Up to you.
	It's your call.
	I leave it to the Court's discretion.
	My view is if we're going to do part, we should do the whole, and having done part, we should do the whole.
	Okay, so Mr. Jones, I've entered A ruling that there can be—you're not going— I'm so sorry to interrupt the court.
	Before we do that, there are some other issues, so may I give the court my list?
	I was just going to do one by one so I don't forget.
	So Mr. Jones, there was a ruling that I entered that there can be no evidence and so you won't be questioned along the lines of PQPR and free speech systems being separate entities.
	So you can't offer, you can't say that essentially.
	You're not going to be asked it so there would be no reason for you to say that.
	I know you may not agree but you understand that you're not permitted to do so.
	Okay, next issue?
	The next issue is no evidence or argument that Mr. Jones did not profit from Sandy Hook coverage.
	Okay, so sir, I made that ruling as well.
	No one is going to ask you that question so you can't just out of the blue say well I didn't profit again I understand uh you may not agree with that ruling but that is the ruling for the at least at this trial level do you understand sir yes sir next and the last issue is that there should be no evidence or argument that Mr. Jones it would be unfair to hold him accountable in damages in this case um because of his de-platforming because
	of the Texas verdict or because of his bankruptcy Well, that wasn't a ruling that I entered, so if any of the questions are asked, I assume that that would just be objected to, and if the...
	Your Honor, we believe that as the law of the case has developed, that that has been a ruling of the court, and also that that was actually part of the motion and limiting ruling.
	That's been our understanding.
	Let me ask you, Attorney Pattis, do you see any...
	Questions that are going to be asked that would elicit an answer about bankruptcy?
	I'm not asking for a proffer on the cross, but it's hard to know.
	I didn't hear you.
	I'm sorry.
	I'm not asking for a proffer on the scope of the cross, so it's hard to know.
	My view is, well, you know my view of the case.
	we've argued it for days here.
	It's possible that that could happen.
	I don't know how Mr. Jones will construe the questions that attorney Maddy asked.
	We're not attempting to salt the record here.
	So if the court has concerns, or my adversary has concerns, I'll leave it to the court's discretion. - I'm just trying to figure out a scenario why bankruptcy should come up in this court Can either of you think of a scenario?
	I don't know what the questions they are going to ask.
	Well, you'll, and both sides, this applies to if there is an issue, the objection is just going to be motion to eliminate.
	I can't think of a possible reason that the bankruptcy should be improper, so I would say, Mr. Jones, that you're not to testify with respect to your bankruptcy proceedings, and you're not going to be asked.
	Okay, sir?
	I understand you don't agree with it, but that is just the court's order.
	I understand.
	Okay, very well.
	Your Honor, the Texas verdict is another concern, and the last is the D platform.
	All right, so let's talk about the Texas verdict.
	Anything that you wanted to add about that?
	I can't see any reason that that would be admissible evidence in this court, so I would not allow that question, and Mr. Jones, that's not something that you're gonna be able to talk about because it would not be proper in this case at this level, okay?
	And then the de-platforming, Attorney Patis, did you want to address the de-platforming issue?
	This is a hearing of damages?
	No.
	Okay, so the de-platforming issue is not an issue, sir, for this jury to address, all right?
	So again, no one's going to ask you.
	If the question's asked, you'll hear an objection, motion, and limine ruling, or something like that.
	You're not to mention the de-platforming.
	All right, so...
	I would appreciate it if there is any concern that a question is going to elicit any of the testimony that I've just addressed with Mr. Jones that we follow what Attorney Pattis says and just say something along the lines of objection, motion, and limine.
	And I assume there will be because there have been objections throughout the trial so far, but I'm sure your attorney has told you if someone makes such an objection, just don't answer and let you deal with it.
	Alright, can we get our jury now?
	and they got here early, so I'd like to get started.
	Please.
	Okay.
	Thank you.
	I'm excited to bring out the panel, as I try to remember to say every day, in accordance with Judicial Branch policy.
	Only the specific individuals or entities who were authorized to record or photograph or video may do so.
	Anyone who does so without permission will have their device or devices confiscated and will be removed from the courtroom.
	So please make sure we abide by that rule.
	And also, if you haven't already done so, turn off your Apple Watches and phones or at least put them to vibrate.
	I've done that myself.
	Good morning.
	On this rainy day today, I think it's our first day of bad weather.
	Welcome back everyone.
	Good morning.
	Good morning.
	Ron's handing out your notebooks.
	Please be seated.
	Make yourselves comfortable.
	Council stipulate that the entire panel has returned.
	Yes, Your Honor.
	I do.
	All right.
	And Ron, I asked and there were no notes.
	With any jury conduct issues, and I'll just try to remind you every day, if and when something comes up, please make sure you follow that procedure.
	I want to thank you for your patience this morning.
	I know you were actually all here early, but we had some technical equipment issues that we had to deal with, but I guess it was a good day that you got your coffee machine in there, so I thought that might come in, Andy.
	You're very welcome.
	Thank you and good morning.
	The plaintiffs call Alex Jones.
	Very well, Mr. Jones.
	Just watch the cords in your step when you come up.
	Let me stand.
	Please raise your right hand.
	You solemnly swear, sincerely affirm, that the evidence you shall give concerning this case shall be the truth to hold you with nothing but the truth.
	So I'll be God, or upon penalty of perjury.
	Thank you.
	Please be seated.
	Then I just need you to state your name, slowly spell your last name for the record, and the town in which you live.
	Starting with my last name?
	No, just state your name and spell your last name for the record.
	Alexander E. Jones, J-O-N-E-S. And your town?
	Austin, Texas.
	Oh great, thank you.
	Thank you.
	Just let Mr. Jones get situated.
	Thanks.
	All right, you may the water.
	Thank you, Your Honor.
	Mr. Jones, you're here pursuant to a subpoena today, is that correct?
	Yes.
	You were deposed in Connecticut earlier this year, and at that time, I arranged to have a subpoena served on you to assure that you would appear at this trial, correct?
	I believe so.
	And you could have come to this courtroom at any time since we've started, if you wanted to, correct?
	Yes.
	In fact, you know where the courthouse is because you've given press conferences right outside this courthouse yesterday and the day before, correct?
	Yes.
	But this is the first time you've been in the courtroom, yes?
	Yes.
	This is the first time you've been under oath in this case, right?
	And you understand that the families that I represent brought this case against you about four years ago?
	Yes.
	To seek justice from this jury for what you did to them, correct?
	You understand that's why we're here?
	I understand they sued me, yes.
	And this is an important case.
	You understand that?
	I mean, that's an opinion.
	Okay.
	You don't think this is an important case?
	That's a yes or no, sir.
	It's not.
	I don't really think it is a case.
	I don't think it is a case.
	Okay.
	We're going to just, there's going to be a lot of this today.
	Objection, Judge.
	All right, so let me, let's iron out the wrinkles now.
	If you can answer the question of the yes or no, Mr. Jones, the answer of the yes or no, if you don't know the answer, you can say don't know the answer.
	And of course, if there's an objection, you'll just wait for the middle of the answer.
	This is an important case, isn't it, Mr. Jones?
	I think this is historic.
	Mr. Jones, the judge just gave you an instruction.
	Objection.
	To answer the question.
	Objection.
	You turn to court.
	So I would -- I'll -- Should you do it again?
	Do this.
	So the question, Mr. Jones, is it an important case?
	And the answers that you can give are yes, no, or I don't know.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	You can understand why it would be very important to the families I represent, correct?
	Yes.
	But it's also important to you, isn't it?
	Yes.
	Because you've been using this case as a marketing opportunity over the past You created a new website on Infowars.com called Kangaroo Court, just so your followers can watch this case, haven't you?
	That's not a website.
	What would you call a webpage on Infowars.com?
	It's a page.
	Okay, page.
	Thank you for that correction.
	There's a webpage on InfoWars.com that you've titled Kangaroo Court so that your followers can watch what's happening here, right?
	Yes, that's my opinion.
	Okay, and why don't we pull up, actually, Exhibit 504. This is, just for the witness, please.
	Exhibit 504. There's a screen down there from Mr. Jones.
	See that?
	Yes.
	Okay, is that the Kangaroo Court page that you've had up and running?
	Yes.
	Okay, I'd offer you, Your Honor.
	No objection.
	And you see here, you've been clipping testimony that's been happening in this courtroom over the last couple of weeks, haven't you?
	I have not been clipping, no.
	You don't do that yourself.
	You have your employees do that.
	I'm not even directing it.
	Oh, okay, so you didn't know that this was happening?
	Jackson, I already managed it.
	Oh, wait.
	No, I've not been there.
	I don't direct most of the headlines.
	They just know that this is what you want, right?
	Objection calls for speculation.
	Hold. - No, no, no.
	I'm not supposed to talk about the prior rulings.
	Excuse me, sir.
	So how do I answer why I think something's a kangaroo court if I'm not supposed to say why I think it is?
	The question that I just asked you, sir, was whether you knew that your employees wanted to do this, whether they knew that I don't know.
	I mean, I'm sure they agree with me.
	That's why they put that headline up.
	And right above there, as you're saying, watch highlights from the Alex Jones Sandy Hook kangaroo court hearings, you're running an ad for Brain Force Plus, right?
	Yes.
	Orders a day, right?
	This is what you're showing your audience.
	The next generation of advanced neural activation and nootropics.
	Is that right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	How much is that going for on InfoWordStore.com right now with the sale?
	I don't know.
	Ever since this trial started and you've been calling it a kangaroo court yourself, right?
	Yes.
	And you've called this judge a tyrant, correct?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And you actually use that word a lot with your audience.
	You call people tyrants, don't you?
	Only when they act like it.
	Okay.
	One way that you've been conveying to your audience that Judge Bellis has been acting like a tyrant is by showing her with lasers coming out of her eyes, right?
	You know you did that?
	I didn't direct that first time I saw it was in court.
	Oh, so you've been watching this?
	Yeah, I've been watching.
	Okay.
	You could have just watched from the state.
	Injection, argumentative.
	Suspense.
	But you've been broadcasting your show during this.
	How did you?
	I have taped some of my show.
	Let's pull a 477. Is this full?
	This should be in already.
	It is a full exhibit.
	And what was it wrong, 477?
	477, Your Honor.
	This is the tyrant you've been telling your audience about, right?
	Yep.
	I'm barred from saying why I said it.
	I didn't ask you why.
	Oh.
	This is the tyrant you've been telling your audience about, right?
	I believe, I believe.
	Sir.
	Mr. Jones.
	Yes.
	Look at me.
	Yes.
	I don't know.
	The answer is you don't know.
	About that.
	I didn't make that.
	This is the tyrant, pictured here, that you've been telling me what it's about, right?
	I thought you were asking me again about the image or about me believing this is tyrannical?
	Can we restate the question, please?
	Sure.
	I'll restate it for the third time for you.
	Objection to new comments.
	Move to strike.
	This is...
	Can we have one?
	Okay, thank you.
	This picture right here, that's Judge Bellis, correct?
	Yes.
	Lasers coming out of her eyes, correct?
	Yes.
	That's who you've been referring to as a tyrant to your audience, correct?
	Yes.
	Okay, and you refer to tyrants to your audience a lot, right?
	Some.
	Right.
	Tyrants are people who are going to oppress others and strip them of their freedoms, correct?
	That's a common definition.
	Right.
	You've not just called Judge Bellis a tyrant, but you said that this whole thing, what's happening here, is part of a plot, isn't it?
	Motion in limiting?
	No, not the whole thing.
	I think the jury's real.
	Motion in limiting?
	Sorry.
	Can I have that question again?
	Yeah, I think what I asked is...
	I understand.
	I understand.
	Thank you.
	What you've been telling your audience is that this whole thing is part of a plot, I believe is what I asked.
	Motion in limiting?
	Politics.
	That's a yes or no.
	It's a yes, no, and I don't know, sir.
	I thought there was withdrawn.
	May we approach briefly?
	Yes, sir.
	He's going to talk about if this goes on, Hillary, this, that, and everything else.
	And I thought that politics was out of it.
	Thank you. - He thinks this is a plot orchestrated by, excuse me, I don't mean that.
	He thinks this trial reflects the effort of tyrants to silence him, including George Solis, Hillary Clinton, and others.
	And by asking this question, the door is being opened.
	Yeah, that opens the door.
	And it hasn't just been cute.
	Can we pull that back up?
	I didn't hear the question yet.
	I haven't asked one yet.
	It hasn't just been this way that you've been depicting the timing.
	Let me show you Exhibit 477. Is this 477?
	One moment.
	You also have displayed Judge Bellis engulfed in flames, haven't you, to your audience?
	Yes.
	No.
	One of my crew made that.
	They made thousands of images.
	Thousands of images.
	Just one second.
	Is this what looks like?
	No, it's not, Your Honor.
	Pull it down.
	I'd offer it.
	No objection, Judge.
	I forgot the number.
	461. 469?
	One.
	Thank you.
	Do we have a bench copy?
	Uh, not at the one we are.
	And that's Judge Bellis on the right there, isn't it?
	Yes.
	Engulfed in flames.
	And...
	And that's a...
	I didn't ask you the other person.
	Oh, that's okay.
	That's another judge, right?
	Objection, motion, and limiting.
	That's not what I was going to say.
	Objection, motion, and limiting.
	That's another producer's report.
	That's-- So Mr. Jones, because your attorney stood up and objected.
	So remember when there was-- I'll draw it.
	I'll draw it.
	OK.
	But you see-- Yeah, another person made this report.
	Just remember that when there was an objection, just-- What?
	Yeah.
	That's-- that's what you're talking about.
	Thank you.
	Yes, thank you.
	Another-- one of your employees made that, right?
	Greg Reese?
	Yes, it's another producer.
	He's an independent producer.
	His report that was made that we later featured on the site, I first learned about it in the last court case.
	But yes, I think it's showing that Lady Liberty's being burned up by due process being erased.
	And Mr. Jones, Greg Reese, are you saying he's not an employee of yours?
	He's a, I believe he's a contractor now.
	Okay, you pay him, yes?
	Yes.
	You pay him to create these video segments, right?
	I mean, he independently makes what he wants.
	And you pay him for it.
	Yes.
	All right.
	And you paid him, you can take that down, you paid him to create a little mini-documentary about Bill Aldenberg just this past week, didn't you?
	I don't know who Bill Aldenberg is.
	Oh, he's the FBI, I've got to remember now.
	Yeah, so you paid him to make a little mini-documentary featuring Bill Aldenberg, didn't you?
	I think I saw a thumbnail for it.
	I don't believe I've watched it.
	It's just you aired it on your show.
	This was last week.
	You were in Austin last week.
	I don't watch the breaks.
	Okay, so what happens is when you're on your show, you go to break and they just show some video.
	And you have no knowledge of it, is that what you're saying?
	I mean, I watch a lot of it, but no, I go eat food, I go to the bathroom.
	I remember not seeing an article about it or something about it.
	Take a look at Exhibit 513, Mr. Jones.
	Just pull up with Mr. Jones.
	513. 513. ID at this point, sir.
	Yes.
	You have it?
	You have it, Mr. John Frank-Bernie?
	Hi.
	That's it, right?
	That's a still shot from Greg Reese reports?
	Yes.
	Featuring Bill Aldenburg.
	I don't remember this report, but I remember this fellow.
	I don't know who he is.
	Never said his name until I saw him up here talking about me.
	And then I have seen this report posted.
	I haven't watched it.
	Mr. Jones, you don't know if you ever said his name.
	I've never said his name until now.
	Let's pull up Exhibit 50. Before we get to that...
	I mean, you mean recently.
	There's no question, sir.
	Exhibit 5-0, is that full or...
	It should be.
	That is a full exhibit, Your Honor.
	Thank you.
	It is.
	Mr. Jones, this has been introduced as a chart of all of the days for which you didn't produce any videos to us in which you talked about Sandy Hook.
	So let's start with April 8th, 2013. Did you say Phil Oldenburg's name on that day?
	I don't believe so.
	I don't remember him.
	I don't believe so.
	You don't know, do you?
	I think I've said like two people's names.
	You don't know whether you said Bill Aldenberg's name, do you?
	From my memory, I've never seen him before until he sued me.
	So I'm going to ask my question again.
	Why don't we just scroll through this as we do.
	Is it your sworn testimony to this jury that you never said Bill Aldenberg's name on any of these days here?
	Do you know that?
	I got a pretty good memory, and the first I heard of him from my memory was when he sued me.
	I mean, but this was over 10 years.
	I mean, that's my recollection.
	I have never heard about him.
	I'm like, who's this FBI guy out of the list?
	So let's just make it clear then.
	You said 10 years ago.
	We got October 4th, 2021. So I just want to know.
	Oh, I may have talked about him recently.
	I just want to know.
	Because you're here under Under oath that you never said Bill Aldenberg's name.
	Yes or no?
	Not until recently, I don't believe I ever said his name.
	Yes or no?
	I think I just said his name.
	I think I've said his name recently.
	I can't remember.
	Okay.
	What about before?
	Can you tell this jury?
	I don't believe I ever did.
	So you don't know, do you?
	If you've got me saying it, please show me.
	Oh, I see you.
	No, it was news to me when he sued me.
	I didn't know who he was.
	Well, let's pull up.
	513. I'd offer it here.
	I don't know if it's been formally admitted yet.
	This is the Greg Reese report, so I'd offer it.
	I don't know whether the writings are going to run.
	May I need to read the attorney, Mandy?
	Absolutely.
	Do you have a different...
	I need to read you the writings to the court's prior ruling, Judge.
	Give him a moment.
	Take your time.
	Can we scroll down on it, please?
	Is there more than what's displayed on the screen?
	Can you scroll down for a turn?
	That's it.
	That's it.
	If all is on the screen, no objection if there's no tax accompanying it.
	We'll offer everyone.
	All right.
	So this is your webpage, ban.video, right?
	Yes.
	You ran this video last week.
	You see your Alex Jones kangaroo court watch day one, right?
	My crew posted this.
	Mr. Jones, you own 100% of system systems, right?
	Okay, you're in charge, right?
	I mean, yes.
	I'm just asking if I posted it.
	I didn't post it physically.
	I didn't make it.
	Let's pull out of that.
	And the title of the video is, FBI sues Alex Jones to destroy First Amendment.
	That's the title, right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	You know the FBI hasn't sued you.
	you.
	You know that, right?
	I mean, I think that's a point of view.
	I actually agree with that.
	Mr. Jones.
	Oh, you agree.
	The FBI is a plaintiff in this case that sued you here.
	That's what you want us to tell this jury?
	I mean, he's an FBI agent and he's up here in his capacity.
	And when he got asked...
	Excuse me, Mr. Jones, I asked you whether it's your testimony that the FBI is a plaintiff in this case.
	Is that your testimony?
	I mean, I think this is a deep state situation, yeah.
	Okay.
	Mr. Jones, you understand what I'm asking.
	Objection, move to strike the commentary in the bedroom.
	So how about we just get an answer to the question?
	Mr. Jones, the question is, is the FBI a plaintiff in this case?
	Yes, no, or I don't know.
	I mean, I don't think officially they are.
	But this is what you tell your audience here, right?
	Did you see any Bill Altenberg's testimony?
	I did.
	You did.
	But that's what you told your audience.
	That the FBI had sued you, right?
	No, that's the headline of another person.
	And this video right here, I don't know if you can see it, Just as of September 15th, had 190,000 views, didn't it?
	Yes.
	And you said you watched Mr. Altenberg's testimony?
	I watched quite a bit.
	You heard him describe the threats he had received?
	Yes.
	You heard him describe the harassment he had received?
	Yes.
	You're going to describe years of feeling insecure as a result of the army that you sit on?
	Objection.
	Judge, move to strike head.
	Sustained.
	I mean, he said and everybody said his name.
	No, yes.
	Sorry.
	No, no, let me finish.
	I sustained his objection, and you didn't answer it anyway.
	He won, and you kept going.
	So, just, why don't you take a break?
	Okay.
	Take a breath.
	And just remember, when Attorney Patti suggests, I think your words will be quiet.
	Thank you.
	I'll rule.
	You're right.
	I'll slow down.
	Okay.
	How's that, Attorney Patti?
	And then it deviates to formally disregard the comments of counsel.
	So ordered.
	And after all that, you still chose to put Bill Aldenberg's face up in front of him.
	Objection.
	To your audience of hundreds of minutes, correct?
	As soon as a fact, not an evidence.
	No, I did not direct Greg Reese to make this, but I think it's a good report.
	Okay, so when you did become aware of it, you didn't take it down, did you?
	No, I stand by the report.
	Very good.
	Even though I'm watching.
	Just wait for the next question, sir, please.
	So after Bill Aldenberg and after Judge Bellis, who's next? - Thank you.
	Objection.
	mean I guess if somebody's on national TV sorry okay I'm not hearing him I Can you be louder?
	I never thought I would say this, Attorney Patis.
	Yes, Judge, I can be louder.
	How's that?
	Okay, so your client cannot hear.
	So let's pull up just for the witness, Exhibit 512.
	One more time.
	512.
	Take a look at the screen next to you.
	Okay.
	That's the landing page for band.video, your video page, right?
	Yes, I'll bring one.
	May I have one moment, Jay?
	Take your time.
	No objection.
	All right, that's a full exhibit.
	So if anybody goes to your band.video page right now, first thing they can do is buy high-quality, storable food from you because it's back in stock, yes?
	Yes.
	They can do many things first.
	And then they can go to your Alex Jones Kangaroo Court Watch channel there, right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	they can go ahead and click on the video that you gave yesterday outside this courthouse while Eric Lafferty was testifying.
	Right?
	I don't know that.
	That's not you yesterday?
	I didn't know.
	Objection compound video testifying.
	That's you yesterday, right?
	Yes.
	You gave that press conference, what about, 2 o'clock?
	But I don't understand the question.
	You don't understand the question?
	Yes, I gave a press conference.
	Yeah, it was around 2 o'clock, right?
	I believe so.
	You know who was testifying at that time?
	No.
	Okay.
	I was called here by you at 2, and then you said you didn't need me.
	No, you were not, sir.
	So maybe you want to talk to your lawyer about that.
	Jackson did colloquy and moved to strike judge.
	All right.
	So, Mr. Jones, I think you offered testimony.
	There was no question pending, so it's best not to do that.
	May we approach briefly sidebar?
	I don't know.
	I'd like to ask a relief from the court based on a problem.
	I'll see you, counsel, on the sidebar.
	We were warned about contentment.
	It's trying to put me in the case with these snide comments, and I don't think you should tolerate it.
	Mr. Jones said something that was untrue about when it was clear.
	Mr. Jones, do you want me to say something to correct it?
	Because what he said was untrue.
	Do you want me to say something?
	No, I want you to admonish counsel.
	I am not in the case.
	I'm not going to be putting the case out there.
	I'm just saying it.
	Let's not put it in the facts in the case.
	Do you want me to say anything to the jury about the prosecution?
	I welcome you to say that what he just said was not accurate.
	I didn't tell him to be here.
	Here's the deal.
	At one point, early in the day, he said I made him available to you.
	Early in the day, you alerted me now.
	I don't know when I got to him.
	I just didn't know.
	I did know that I asked him.
	Chris, please, before you start.
	Let's just move on.
	I just don't want the sniping directed at me.
	OK.
	We can pull that back up.
	And then now here is Greg Reese.
	That's your contractor?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	So anybody come to this band.video page, they got you up top, the Alex Jones show.
	They can see anything they want there, right?
	Of your shows?
	Yes.
	You got The War Room with Owen Troyer.
	He's the guy who comes on after you, right?
	Yes.
	American Journal, that's the gentleman who comes on before you.
	Those are your three live broadcasts each day, yes?
	Yes, Chris.
	Okay.
	You can back out of that.
	I tend to run a pretty formal courtroom, Mr. Jones, which is why I call him Mr. Jones.
	Thank you.
	So, Attorney Mary, Attorney Paul.
	Attorney Matty.
	You've been telling your audience, Mr. Jones, this week and last, that this is a King Drew Court.
	Judge Bellis is a tyrant.
	It's a part of a plot.
	Because you don't want your audience to know what's really happening here.
	Isn't that correct?
	Objection, motion, and limiting opening a door.
	I don't think I'm opening any door with that.
	Because your credibility, sir, is the most important thing with your audience, isn't it?
	How do I answer a question, Your Honor, that I've been barred from answering under orders of the court?
	All right, so the question is your credibility is the most important thing to you.
	Is that a question that you can...
	It's the most important thing with your audience, sir?
	No, my most important...
	Okay, no.
	Your credibility is not your most important thing.
	It's crushing the globalists.
	Crushing globalists.
	And you tell your audience that they need to keep letting you crush those globalists for the sake of their own families, right?
	Objection judge.
	Motion limited.
	We're hoping.
	Maybe I'm misunderstanding.
	But I don't think that there's- We're going to excuse the jury at this point for five minutes so that we can work out this Okay?
	so just be patient with us as we've been all along.
	Thank you.
	So let me, I'm not sure I understand.
	Attorney Pettis might be right, and I just may not be getting it, so why don't we explore it a little bit and just...
	My objection was...
	Well, I want to get the question again in the line of questioning and see what the concern is.
	I recall a judge, if you want to hurt that.
	No, no.
	You know, attorney Manny inquired of Mr. Jones whether his credibility was his most important attribute.
	Then Mr. Jones offered crushing the globalists was, which was non-responsive.
	However, Mr. Manny adopted the non-responsive answer in his next question and asked about crushing the globalists.
	Mr. Jones would testify that he believes that this trial is part of a plot to silence him funded by the names I'm prohibited to utter in the jury's presence, and we've had extended argument about that.
	So I'm simply alerting the court that, in my view, That's opening a door that I won't seek to walk through.
	And so the purpose of the objection was to alert the court and counsel of that.
	So we don't, Attorney Maddie, we don't want to inject politics into this.
	So what do you suggest?
	Nobody's injecting politics into this.
	What I'm trying to get at, the question I was just about to ask Mr. Jones, was the fact that he tells his audience that they need him to crush the globalists to support their families.
	I'm not getting into whatever he's talking about this plot is in this courtroom.
	What I'm getting into is the general approach he takes, which is to monetize his audience's fears and pain and misery.
	You don't get to take half an answer and adopt the one part you like and ignore the other part you don't.
	And I think there's a way to ask that without opening the door.
	There's nothing about Mr. Jones' relationship with his audience that has anything to do with who's finding this lawsuit.
	John, if he's going to question my client's motives for wanting to crush the globalists and suggest it's all about a dollar, It's all about right in the center of this case.
	And you may recall one of the questions I asked Clint Watts.
	Do you know whether Mr. Jones, and she had to use this term, gins the anger of the public up, or is he responding to an anger that's already there?
	Watts didn't know.
	Mr. Jones, whatever you may think of him and his conduct in Sandy Hook, has beliefs about the globalists.
	To question those motives about him, I think will entitle me as a matter of right to respond in my rehabilitation of him.
	And bring up what topics, though?
	Who are these globalists?
	You were told that you were publishing 512 and 513 as part of an effort to rile up your audience to make this book.
	What are you really doing?
	Who are these globalists?
	Why do you think this trial is part of an effort to sign?
	Who is the tyrant?
	Why do you think the judge has behaved tyrannical?
	Nobody may like the answers he gives in this courtroom, but they're his answers.
	And if the attorney man is going to call his credibility into question on this, I think I have a right to inquire about his beliefs.
	And I think that the court's been pretty firm with me in the last three, four days about where I can and can't go.
	The record is clear.
	I think I've tried to ask questions within the scope of the exhibits the plaintiffs offer, but they always offer something and it's like, oh, you can't use it for the purposes of the judge.
	We can only use it as a source.
	I understand, Terrence.
	So if you're going to ask Mr. Jones about the globalists, if Tony Pagas wants to elicit testimony about who the globalists are, then that apparently would violate the law.
	I don't know if it would violate it.
	Well, I believe, I think that I accept Attorney Pattis' representation that it would.
	Okay, well...
	Zach, am I understanding what you're saying, Attorney Pattis?
	Well, I mean, obviously I'd have to get your permission to inquire If you accept Attorney Thaddeus' view here, then pretty much any question I ask Mr. Jones about what he does, Attorney Thaddeus is going to say it opens the door.
	So I don't think me asking him whether or not he's making money from saying this opens the door to this whatever his...
	Here's the problem with that.
	That's not the question he asked.
	And the record is quite clear.
	Mr. Jones was asked the question about whether That crushing the globalist was.
	The Council had two options at that point.
	It could have moved to strike that answer as non-responsive and then gone on to the question that he just asked.
	You're just here to make a buck.
	But he didn't.
	He adopted the answer, opening the door as part of a pattern in this case, to use the motions in limine here as a sword rather than a shield.
	And we're entitled to swordsmanship as well, and we will engage it.
	So I think that you can...
	Inquire about his monetizing his audience and making money, but I think that you have to steer clear of eliciting testimony that opens the door to.
	Is testifying as to who the gold horse are.
	Thank you.
	Do you need a minute?
	No.
	Okay.
	Thank you.
	All right, the record will reflect.
	The entire panel has returned.
	Please be seated.
	We all thank you for your continued patience.
	Whenever you're ready to move.
	Thank you, Your Honor.
	Mr. Jones, since this trial started, this trial started September 13th, day 7, how much money has Free Speed Systems made?
	I haven't kept track of it.
	You haven't been getting daily text messages with the sales numbers?
	No.
	Your testimony is in the last week.
	Nobody sent you any text messages or other communications with the daily sales?
	I don't believe so.
	Okay.
	We're trying to check in your phone at the break.
	Objection.
	I don't have my phone with me.
	Okay.
	Well, when do you get a change?
	- Objection. - Do you normally get-- - There's an objection. - That's not normal discovery. - I couldn't hear. - Objection that's not proper. - Ongoing discovery obligation. - Well, if that is the case, Attorney Padas, I'm sure you'll deal with it at the break.
	So we can move on.
	You normally get daily sales reports, right?
	Sometimes I do.
	Tim Fruget sent you those?
	No.
	Tim Fruget sent you those back in 2019 and 2020?
	Yes, that's when he was employed, yes.
	Right.
	Now he is an affiliate with you, right?
	Yes.
	You have a financial interest in that, don't you?
	I think it buys products from us.
	Excuse me?
	It buys products from us and sells them.
	It buys products from you.
	You make money that way, and then they sell products on that website, right?
	Yes.
	And that's Tim Fruget, your former business director, right?
	Yes.
	And you set him up financially to do that, yes?
	I don't believe so, no.
	You don't recall testifying in your deposition, sir, that you funded Free World Outlet initially to get him off the ground?
	Can you refresh me with that testimony?
	I'm asking you right now, if you recall it.
	I don't remember.
	Free World Outlet's a very small site.
	I've not really paid attention to it.
	Okay.
	And did you tell the corporate rep about that, FreeWorldOutlet.com?
	I don't remember.
	Okay.
	Who was the corporate rep, by the way?
	Brittany Paz.
	Which one?
	The one who testified here.
	Brittany, pause. - So Tim Fruget, who now helps run freemoldoutlets.com, he used to give you daily sales reports, yes?
	Sometimes, yes.
	Who does it now?
	I've not been getting those reports.
	Who does it when you do get them?
	I can go in and I can pull up the reports myself, but I've not been doing that because I don't...
	Mr. Jones, the question I ask you is, who's doing it now?
	I'm not allowed under the judge's order to tell you about what happened to my company.
	That's not true, Mr. Jones.
	What I'm asking you is who sends you daily sales reports?
	He's answered.
	Asked and answered several times.
	I didn't get the answer, so he was saying the answer.
	Okay, you're telling me to answer the question.
	All right, so I'm going to excuse the jury again.
	You're going to get your exercise today for those of you who wear fit bits.
	So just put your pads down and you'll follow along.
	I think he's following the rules here.
	I think he was probably going to say one of the bankruptcy people.
	It's just the bankruptcy people are in control of it.
	Who sends you the daily sales report?
	Objection!
	Well, that was nice and loud.
	That calls the identity of a person.
	No, no.
	So, in fairness to Mr. Jones, He could have said whatever the lingo is for a bankruptcy dog.
	What were you going to say?
	Yes, until yesterday, the CRO, the bankruptcy, is in full control of everything.
	So that's not responsive to my question.
	Objection!
	No.
	Because I can't say...
	So the question...
	No, you did the right thing.
	You asked who sent in the daily...
	Who gets the daily sales reports now?
	And if the answer was the bankruptcy person, then he knows he's not supposed to say that.
	I said, who sends you daily sales reports?
	And he said no one does.
	When he gets them, he gets them from the bankruptcy people.
	I don't think he said no one does, but that is correct.
	- All right, so what do you propose to do?
	Because he's following the rules.
	Okay, well done. - Thank you. - You're welcome.
	All right, so why don't we get the panel?
	I think it's a good thing we broke the coffee pot today.
	- Can the jury be informed that that was an appropriate break because there was concern about compliance with the court order?
	- No. - Thank you. - Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Alrighty, welcome back.
	Take your seats whenever you're comfortable.
	So I hope you don't think we're being into light.
	We have issues to discuss, and it's so much easier to have you all get up and go to your own than us trying to all set up somewhere else.
	So just bear with us.
	Thank you.
	Mr. Jones, I'm going to shift gears a little bit.
	Do you agree with me that your reputation is very important to you?
	Objection to the forum, Judge.
	No, I don't agree.
	Do you agree that protecting your identity from lies and falsehoods about you is something that you care about?
	I care about freedom.
	That was my question.
	So, my question was, do you agree that protecting your identity, your own identity, from people lying about you, spreading falsehoods about you, that's important to you, is it not?
	Would you guess you'd ever know?
	Yes.
	I mean, that's just a human thing, isn't it?
	Nobody wants to be lied about, right?
	No.
	And particularly about the core things that make them who they are, right?
	Yes.
	And you have those things in your life.
	Your family, yes?
	Yes.
	Your work?
	Yes.
	Your relationships with your loved ones, right?
	Yes.
	Your relationships with your loved ones, the lessons you learned as a young person about how to be in the world, yes?
	Yes.
	All of these things that go into who you are as a person, right?
	Yes.
	And you would never want to be maligned or lie about those things that are poor to you, correct?
	Correct.
	Yes, but I have been plenty.
	You have been, and that's been her fault, isn't it?
	The world isn't an easy place.
	When people become political figures, they get in their arena.
	You know, I think that that was probably what you were just trying to do there was to suggest- Objection.
	Sustained.
	And as I told the jury, and I know you're probably sick of hearing it from me, but this case is not about politics.
	Right?
	To heal any damages.
	We wanted to move on.
	Were you just trying to suggest that my clients, these families, deserve what they got because they had stepped into the arena?
	Is that what you were saying?
	Objection?
	Argumentative?
	No.
	That's not me.
	Okay.
	But I'm saying when you get...
	That's not what you were saying.
	Just wait for...
	So, the...
	What I'm trying to get at though, Mr. Jones, is that these things that are poor to who you are, poor to anybody is, They're lied about and defamed, even just to a small group of people.
	That can be very hurtful, can't it?
	Yes.
	And although you've been critical of this court and the judicial system, you yourself have sought protection in the courts when people have lied about you, haven't you?
	I mean, I have before.
	During this very lawsuit, you yourself have brought a lawsuit against others who you claimed had defamed you, correct?
	You're talking about the Young Turks?
	Yeah.
	You did that, right?
	Yes.
	Can we bring up Exhibit 434 for Mr. Jones, please?
	Is this Fuller ID? It's ID, Your Honor.
	134?
	Motion to leave.
	Politics.
	434. Motion to leave.
	Politics.
	Why don't I take a look at it first?
	position now.
	It doesn't matter to us.
	I can tell you.
	Nine pages I believe.
	There's an exhibit on that.
	It's attached.
	The ID in here too.
	I can give you my copy, Church, if you want to look at it.
	Just give me a minute.
	We have to keep Ron on his toes.
	Thank you.
	I'm going to put it in here.
	Can I see council on the sidebar please?
	He's going to talk about why he sued the Young Turks, and he believes that they're part of another political conspiracy.
	I mean, the problem with this, everything is part of a conspiracy.
	The complaint, which is an admission, is offered to show his knowledge of damages, the Young Turks are another media organization.
	They're a media organization.
	That's it.
	They're competing people who he thinks got co-opted as part of a conspiracy against him.
	Look, that to me isn't in politics, and beyond that, that's not relevant for the purpose.
	My position is, Judge, the plaintiffs don't get to choose the purpose without opening.
	They can't say, well, we get to hurt, but you can't help your own client.
	It doesn't work that way.
	In the same way that many of the exhibits they've offered contain the very figures whose names I'm Prohibited from mentioning.
	I'm using it, and so...
	Well, I don't know that you're using it.
	The court needs to rule.
	I'd ask you...
	I think this opens the door to anything beyond the issues that I'm going to ask him.
	I'm going to ask him...
	I'll ask him why he sued the Young Turks, and then they're going to have to live with that answer.
	And is it going to violate my order?
	It might.
	But you don't know.
	It might not.
	I mean, I don't know.
	If he answers truthfully, he will talk about them having been co-opted by a political opponent, yes.
	Based on what?
	It's his understanding.
	Well, I mean, my contention, Judge, is that the plaintiffs do not get to open a door and then say, you can't look inside the room.
	And so there are ways to do this without opening that door, but if they're going to open it, we're going to walk...
	You've sued.
	You know about damages.
	If the contention is, you've sued.
	You know how people can sue for death.
	You sued for another group, correct?
	He acknowledged.
	He did.
	You were seeking damages.
	You have money damages for your reputation.
	That's because you believe that's an appropriate thing to do.
	Isn't that right?
	I think that's what they're trying to get.
	There's nothing political about that.
	I'm on the green left.
	Can I order this piece of the record, Judge?
	Look, I'm going to ask the questions about it and we can argue about what doors are.
	Well, no, I'm objective.
	I don't want to talk about politics with this guy.
	I might ask him about this lawsuit and his claim that he was...
	Judge, I think they do so at their peril.
	I don't forget.
	May the jury be excused?
	I'd like to make a more complete record based on what it's insured inside.
	So that is on the record.
	So we have the record and it will be admitted over objection.
	So before we pull it up, let's just give the jury a little back.
	So you brought this lawsuit Yes.
	And an entity called the Young Turks LLC, correct?
	Yes.
	And you brought that lawsuit in September of 2019, correct?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	So about a year and a half after this lawsuit.
	Yes.
	And do you know who Brianna Wu is?
	It was people on the line, so-called journalists, saying...
	I just asked you about Brianna Wu.
	So I don't remember who she is now.
	You don't remember who she is, thank you.
	Do you remember who Andrew Kimmel is?
	Not really.
	Okay.
	But you sued them.
	I mean, yes.
	Okay.
	And the Young Turks LLC, am I correct that that's a media organization?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And you brought this lawsuit because you claimed that these people had spread a lie about it, right?
	Objection, motion eliminated.
	I brought the lawsuit to get them to retract and stop saying it.
	Okay.
	It wasn't money.
	Well, we'll get into that.
	But what you wanted was to, you sued them because you believed they had spread a lie about you, correct?
	Yes, it was directly connected in this case.
	Correct.
	So let's get into that.
	So what happened was, back in 2019, you were required to produce some documents to the plaintiffs in this case, correct?
	And I did.
	Okay.
	And among the documents that you gave to your lawyers and that your lawyers produced to us were some emails, correct?
	Yes.
	I think 207,000.
	So, sir, really?
	You just have to answer my question.
	Excuse me.
	So if anyone, either of you, need any help with any witness not answering the questions that you're asking me to do it, that's my job.
	I like to do my job.
	I'm not bad at my job.
	I know you know what I'm gonna say.
	Just yes or no.
	Yeah, yeah, or I don't know.
	Okay, just answer, sir.
	No, no, I'm sorry.
	Thank you, I'm sorry.
	Just look at me and talk.
	Just yes, no, I will talk.
	Thank you.
	Your lawyers, you gave your lawyers some emails to send to us and they sent them, right?
	Yes.
	And attached to some of those emails were images of child pornography, correct?
	Yes.
	And the FBI was alerted about this, right? - Yes. - And the FBI concluded that while those emails were in your organization's possession, they had been sent to your organization from outside, correct? - Yes. - And that there wasn't any evidence that you or anybody in your organization had opened them, correct?
	Yes.
	In other words, that although they had been sent to us, that had been done inadvertently, correct?
	Yes.
	And when you were advised of this, you were upset, yes?
	Yes.
	And so you went on the air, correct?
	Yes.
	And you blamed my office for having You offered a million dollars to have my head on pipe.
	No, objection.
	That mischaracterizes it.
	May we approach?
	I don't think we need to.
	Yeah, I do.
	So-- Come on.
	He didn't.
	I was sitting right there.
	He was never charged with a crime.
	The judge has seen the video.
	You've seen the video, and he said he talked about his suspicions about Mr. Manning, but he never said.
	He said he'd offer a million dollars for the person who did it.
	He had suspicions about him.
	To suggest as an officer to the court otherwise, excuse me, to suggest otherwise as an officer to the court, I'm asking for a curative instruction and admonishment of counsel.
	I was worth sitting there.
	I don't need to.
	Can you ask?
	Well, I'm not going to give a curative instruction.
	I'm not going to acknowledge.
	Can you ask him in a different way?
	Well, he hasn't answered it.
	Right.
	So he can say no, I guess.
	Can you ask him in a different way?
	He can say no if he wants.
	And I can impeach him.
	Can you ask him in a different way?
	I don't want to ask him in a different way.
	So then I'll sustain the objection.
	and then try to ask it. - And attorney, we're due for a break anytime between now and the next 10 minutes.
	I'm going to leave it up to you as to when it's a good point.
	Thank you.
	Yep.
	So, Mr. Jones, when you found out about this, you went on your show, right?
	Yes.
	And you held my picture up to your audience, yes?
	You have to refresh my memory.
	- Mr. Jones, you know you did that, don't you? - Objection. - Overruled.
	- You know you did that.
	- No, I believe you conflated your picture of being on the pile of stuff, me saying it was a reward to find out who did it.
	So how is there a reward if we don't...
	Mr. Jones, the question was, you held my picture up, and I'm not sure I got your answer.
	Was it yes, no, or I don't know?
	-Or you don't recall? -I don't recall.
	-Do you recall pounding on my picture?
	-I pound my desk all the time.
	It was a pile of papers.
	I remember that.
	Okay.
	All right.
	And the reason I'm doing this is because when you went on the air and did all that, people found out that there was this issue about your company having sent child pornography to my office, correct?
	That's how people found out about it.
	Well, you're not going to be clear that someone sent it to me?
	No, no, no.
	I think we've established it.
	No, but you're getting it set up for clips, though.
	I know what you're doing.
	And nobody contests that you had nothing to do with that child pornography.
	Okay?
	Let's make that clear.
	Yeah, you guys found it.
	Correct!
	We found it because it was sent to us, right?
	It was hidden, embedded.
	And then you guys found it.
	Really good job.
	I don't know what's going to start.
	No.
	No commentary.
	Gotcha.
	You can tell the question that's just a certain.
	Yes, ma'am.
	But when you went on the air, that's how it became public that there was this whole issue that child pornography had been sent from your company to my law office, correct?
	I don't remember.
	All right.
	But in any event, once it became public, you claimed that Breonna Wu and Andrew Pimmel and the Young Terps had lied about you having sent it, correct?
	They said more than that, if I remember.
	Right, and you alleged that in your complaint, right?
	Yes.
	And that was deeply harmful to you, that they had lied about the fact that you had sent child pornography, right?
	People still say it all the time everywhere.
	It's a terrible thing to be accused of, correct?
	Yeah, but they quit saying it so I dropped the suit.
	And they...
	We're spreading to, all over the internet, this lie about you that you had sent child pornography, correct?
	Purposefully, that was the issue.
	And that's why you brought this lawsuit, yes?
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	Your Honor, this will be a fine time for a break.
	Alrighty, so we will take our morning recess now, 15 minutes.
	I know you're probably saying to yourself, why do we need another And we've been working the whole entire time, and so I'm required to give them a break.
	So you'll continue to obey the rules of juror conduct.
	Ron, 15 minutes puts us at what time?
	I turned my Apple Watch off so much that I can't even find the clock.
	Let's say 1210, okay?
	So we'll take a recess.
	All right.
	All right. All right. All right.
	Other than that though, the atmosphere inside the courtroom and inside the courthouse is the circus we imagined it would be.
	You know, Michelle, have you ever tried to kind of squeeze jello in your hand?
	That's Alex Jones on the stand.
	It's tough enough being a witness with the requirements you need to follow with objections and the judge's orders.
	Now layer that with nine.
	Yes, nine.
	It ballooned to nine different items that the judge told Mr. Jones he could not talk about during his testimony.
	So the problem is, and we highlighted four of them.
	I tweeted those out.
	There were five more that were added, but they're things like The Austin, Texas case, can't talk about that.
	Your bankruptcy, can't talk about that.
	The First Amendment, can't talk about that.
	If you imagine how vague some of those questions and categories might be, you're getting a picture as to what the problems are in this courtroom.
	Every few minutes there's a sidebar because those categories are so vague.
	That a question to Mr. Jones could elicit many topics that touch on some of those prohibited areas.
	And he, to his credit, is doing his best to avoid getting into those areas.
	Basically telling the questioning attorney, Counsel Matty, that I can't answer that.
	Because if I do, I'm breaking the judge's rules.
	So that's the back and forth we've seen so far.
	It's really prevented us from getting to a lot of substantive information, but the one thing I do want to point out is the FBI agent, plaintiff in this case, who's sitting just ahead of me in the pews, and they're packed today for obvious reasons, he's been the center focus of some of the attacks by the Jones machine,
	And he's been a little squirmy there, sitting in the pews, hearing about his involvement in this case from a very bizarre perspective.
	I mean, that's just Alex Jones.
	This is not a guy that's used to being told, be quiet.
	One very important point that he doesn't seem to get or care about is that when his attorney, Norman Pattis, makes an objection and it's sustained, meaning, hey, you won, shut up!
	But he doesn't.
	He will just continue to give what he thinks is the best answer, even though his attorney has rightfully objected, the objection rightfully sustained, and the idea is to keep Alex Jones quiet as to that specific question.
	It just doesn't work with Alex Jones.
	You can't put them in that box.
	You know what's odd about this, of course, as the civil case is, you listen to the direct examination by Attorney Maddie, it sounds like cross-examination because, let's face it, Alex Jones is at the very least an adverse witness.
	I'm not sure if cross won't sound a little more like direct because, remember, Attorney Patis is going to be helping resurrect his client.
	So we're kind of watching the cross in a through-the-looking-glass kind of way right now.
	It won't get more adversarial with the true cross, because that's from Alex Jones' own attorney.
	So it is really a fascinating process, and to see Jones on the stand in the midst of it is amazing.
	All right, we're ready for our panel.
	Mr. Jones, do you want to come up here, sir?
	Thank you.
	I'll give him a minute once he brings the panel in because I left mine.
	You're welcome to mine, good.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	All right.
	The council stipulate the entire panel has returned. - Thank you.
	Please be seated.
	just give me one moment just bear with me for a moment mr.
	Mr. Corral is getting my notes that I left in my chambers.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Mr. Corral, this is where I come in your slump.
	Thank you.
	Whenever you're ready to turn your mic.
	Thank you.
	Mr. Jones, before the break we were talking about this lawsuit that you brought, right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And again, this lawsuit was brought against Mrs. Wu, Mr. Kimmel and the Young Turks LLC for them stating online that you had sent child pornography to the plaintiffs in this case, correct?
	They said more than that.
	Okay.
	But was that the gist of it?
	No.
	Tell me what you sued them for.
	I mean, they said that I intentionally did it and that I was a horrible problem.
	They said a bunch of stuff.
	It was a lot of different program shows.
	Okay.
	But the gist of the lie here was that you had sent child pornography to the plaintiffs in this case, yes?
	Yes.
	not that it had been sent to me unopened, then discovered by you and discovery sent to you.
	They left that part out, correct?
	I don't remember now.
	Okay.
	But that would have been an important context for them to provide an accurate account of what happened here, correct?
	Yes.
	And they didn't do that?
	Yes.
	And as a result of those statements, you claimed that this had resulted in viral spread of this lie about you, correct?
	Yes.
	The Young Terps had a Twitter account, they posted it to that, correct?
	They have a popular television show that's also on television.
	And the issue was I was...
	I just had to go to the Twitter account, sir.
	So let's just go one step at a time.
	Okay.
	The concern you had was that this lie about you was spreading online, correct?
	Yes.
	In a viral way, right?
	Yes.
	And what you meant by that was that it was taking off online, correct?
	Yes.
	And reaching a wide audience, yes?
	Yes.
	And the more people who come into contact with this, as you called it, one of the worst smears that can be spread about anyone, the more people that came in contact with that, the more damage is being done to you, correct?
	I mean, I think that's fair to say.
	Because the more people who see this, the more people who might believe it, right?
	Well, I don't know they're going to believe it, but it's...
	That's the concern, right?
	Yes.
	Because if people believe, especially a large number of people who encounter this lie in the Stain on your reputation as an individual, correct?
	I think it was 20 years in prison, too.
	Correct!
	They accused you of a felony, didn't they?
	Yes.
	And not only just any felony, I mean, you know, assault is a felony, but this is a particular kind of felony, possessing child pornography, right?
	And distributing it.
	And distributing it.
	And it's the type of allegation that would provoke a lot of anger in people.
	Who, if they were to believe that about you, right?
	Yes.
	And might provoke people to even want to confront you about it, right?
	Objection calls for speculation might occur.
	I think you testified earlier that you have come across people who have accused you of this, right?
	It's still ongoing.
	Right.
	And if that happens, Obviously, there are certain measures you need to take to try and protect yourself from people who may need to do you harm as a result of this, right?
	And when they stop saying it, we drop the soup.
	We just wanted to stop saying it.
	But I'm just saying, when people believe something horrible like this, that you're a child pornographer, that could lead to people who believe it to hate you, right?
	Judging calls for speculation.
	I mean, I think that's fair to say.
	And if they really believed it and they really hated you, you might have a few people come after you, right?
	Objections.
	Well, like the police.
	That's one, right?
	But what about people who are just out there and unhinged thinking, Alex Jones, child pornographer.
	Next time I see him, Lloyd.
	That's a concern, right?
	It's a reasonable concern.
	And they named my name.
	I didn't name most of these people's names.
	Yeah, I'm not I'll go on to the next question.
	And as a result of that concern, you yourself have taken measures to protect you and your family, correct?
	We have to have more security as the Sandy Hook thing, actually, than that.
	But you got security guards in the courtroom right now, don't you?
	Yeah.
	These two gentlemen over here in the black jackets, that's part of your security team?
	Yes.
	They follow you everywhere you go, right?
	Yes, not due to the fake child porn, but due to this.
	Well, you've had a security team for a long time, haven't you?
	That's the main address.
	I was asking you, have you had security team for a long time?
	It's a yes or no, whether he's had a security team for a long time.
	Four years since the Sandy Hook suits.
	And this gentleman here on the right, that's Tim Hemlock, is that right?
	Yes.
	Okay, he's your head of security?
	Yes.
	And they walk around with your pieces, right?
	So they can communicate with one another?
	I don't know they have those.
	You flew up here on a private jet, is that right?
	A charter plane.
	Charter plane, okay.
	One of the reasons you do that is because you travel commercial.
	You know who you're going to run into, right?
	Since this case, yes.
	Since the Texas case, it's bad.
	It's not a big point here, but you are under oath.
	So I just want to ask you.
	Objection, again.
	So let's just get the next question.
	Is it your testimony, objection, that you're never charged?
	Sorry, just one second.
	Side part, please.
	So I'm going to get this.
	I objected to his instructing counsel, which is the role of a court.
	If you have an issue, just ask me Is it your sworn testimony that you've never chartered a private jet
	before this lawsuit, sir?
	Yes.
	Never, before 2018, had you chartered a private jet.
	You sure you want to say that?
	Yes.
	Alright.
	So, in the financials that you've turned over to us, we won't see any expenses prior to 2018 for any private chartered air travel, correct?
	You said a jet.
	I mean, I think we rented Cessna's for Aerial news shows at the border.
	One time me and my wife and my children were in Canada.
	We rented a seaplane that flew us for a couple hours up to a place to eat.
	Other than that, I've never known.
	Not until now, not until this.
	Okay, so your testimony is that prior to this lawsuit, you actually did fly on charter planes, correct?
	No, you said a jet.
	I'm sorry.
	If I was confusing you, but with the word jet...
	Would a hot air balloon count?
	I have also rented those a few times in my life.
	No, that's not what I was referring to.
	I have rented...
	Just see if you can answer this yes or no, sir.
	Prior to this lawsuit, you had paid for chartered private air travel, correct?
	Yes, not jets.
	And in addition to the security team that you have and your private air travel arrangements, I take it that you have security systems at your homes, correct?
	Sure.
	And obviously at your office you have pretty extensive security at the Enfor's offices.
	Yes.
	So with this lawsuit, Why don't we bring up paragraph 7 on page 3. Has it been admitted yet?
	I did offer it.
	I don't know the doors are below.
	I think you can move on to the sidebar.
	Which number?
	424.
	424?
	Yes, 434 was made full exhibit about 45 minutes ago.
	So let's pull up the air in our second view of my critique, please.
	Okay.
	And this is a complaint that one of your lawyers, Robert Barnes, drafted on your path, correct?
	Yes.
	It was filed in a lawsuit to commence this lawsuit against these people.
	Yes.
	And one of the claims he made was that on June 17, 2019, at 9.44 p.m., the Young Turks, by and through St. Uyghur, that's somebody associated with that group, yes?
	St. Uyghur is a person associated with Young Turks?
	Yes.
	Published on his Twitter account, Quote, Alice Jones sent child porn to Sandy Hook parents.
	See exhibit one.
	The Young Turfs Twitter at Young.
	And that's at the same headline in the Young Turfs video page, where it still stands today.
	And so there was a tweet, right?
	And there was a headline associated on their video page, according to this paragraph, correct?
	I believe so.
	All right.
	If you go further down, you say here that they hold themselves out as, quote, serious journalists with millions of followers across multiple social media platforms and the biggest media network on YouTube that is completely monetized by YouTube, etc., etc., correct?
	Yes.
	And the point of that is to show that these people who you claim lie about to you had a significant platform that could result in significant harm to you, yes?
	Yes, and we weren't allowed to respond back because we weren't on that platform.
	So you then go down further, and let's go to paragraph 12. One of the things that you were bringing this case for was something called defamation per se, right?
	In a claim for defamation per se, the words are so obviously hurtful that they require no Yes, they said my name.
	Right.
	The idea is that this type of allegation is so hurtful that just the fact that it was made shows that there was damage done, right?
	I'm not a lawyer, but in the law, if you say their name, do you have to say that person's name?
	- Yeah, you're not a lawyer, are you? - But I-- - So you're not, right?
	- No.
	- Okay.
	- And when you did this, you attached as proof, You're attached as proof.
	Oh, let's go to page 6. Yeah, page 6. And at the end of it, after you've made these allegations, you said, Wherefore, plaintiff respectfully prays for judgment against the defendants in a sum to be determined by a jury.
	Right?
	Did I read that correctly?
	Yes.
	And as proof of the harm...
	That you suffered as a result of this, you included an exhibit.
	And let's go to Exhibit 8. I'm sorry, page 1. This is Exhibit 1. Oh, thank you.
	Appreciate it.
	I'm sorry to interrupt, Council, but you're referring to an exhibit that's part of this exhibit.
	Yes, thank you.
	There was an Exhibit 1 attached to the complaint.
	Thank you.
	Can we just come around to see your board here?
	Sure.
	Let me just use it.
	Yeah, I'm not going to use it just yet.
	Let me just get such a little bit of something to this.
	And as you see here, this is the tweet that was so concerning to you, right?
	And there's a video associated with it, obviously not here on the front.
	No, it was what they said in the video where they said I was going to jail and I did it on purpose and a bunch of other incredible stuff.
	I'll move to strike that, Your Honor.
	What you included in support of your lawsuit was this.
	Yes?
	Yes, an image of the video so you can see the video.
	And the headline was, Alex Jones sent child porn to Sandy Hook parents, correct?
	Yes.
	Now, as a technical matter, your agents did send child pornography to the Sandy Hook families as a technical matter, correct?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And down here, if you look at the bottom, how many retweets You might have it in front of you, sir, if that's easier.
	20. 20. And how many likes?
	37. Okay.
	And then over here, this is 132. Those are comments, yes?
	I don't know.
	You don't remember that?
	Okay.
	The issue is the video, not...
	I didn't ask you any questions, sir.
	All right, you can take that down.
	So there were 20 retweets And 37 likes, right?
	Yes.
	Okay, so we're going to put TYT. That's Young Turks, right?
	Yes.
	So there were 20 retweets.
	Do you need Mr. Jones to see that board?
	Because I'm not sure he can.
	Can you see that board?
	I can see it.
	Oh, never mind.
	Can you see it?
	A little bit.
	And...
	37 likes, right?
	Yes.
	Now, you said you've been watching some of this trial, right?
	Yes.
	You know that Clint Watts testified here earlier this week, correct?
	Yes.
	And did you hear his testimony that at a minimum, your lies about Sandy Hook Reached 550 million just on social media alone.
	Did you recall that testimony?
	That's a yes or no?
	Yes, I recall.
	You recall that?
	Preposterous.
	Move to strike, Your Honor.
	Sir, just remember, no comment.
	No, yes, thank you.
	Thank you.
	I'm done with this.
	That's right.
	Huh?
	My God, thank you.
	Now, Mr. Jones, the lie you spread for years and years was that the families behind me were actors.
	correct?
	I can't answer.
	That's a yes or no.
	No, I'm catching it.
	It's too complex.
	Sorry.
	- Motioning the name.
	- Can I have a sidebar on that?
	- The lies that you spread.
	- He doesn't think they were lies.
	I mean, the court has made that finding, and so this is the heart of that Fifth Amendment issue I have alerted the court to.
	If he agrees with the characterization that it's a lie, he's testifying falsely.
	If he testifies truthfully, he's in contempt of a prior ruling of the court.
	Okay, so I'll do something a little different.
	Okay, that's a good point, though.
	He could take me there.
	If we're going to get to that, I'd rather do it outside the jury's presence because my claim...
	I'll try something.
	Okay.
	Chris? Chris? Chris? Chris? Chris? Chris? Chris? Chris? Chris? Chris? Chris? Chris? Chris? Chris? Chris? Chris? Chris? Chris? Chris? Chris? Chris? Chris? Chris? Chris? Chris? Chris? Chris? Chris? Chris? Chris? Chris? Chris? Chris?
	Chris? Chris?
	So just wait for the next question.
	Mr. Jones?
	May I?
	Sorry.
	Mr. Jones, for years and years and years, you called these families actors, correct?
	No.
	That's not correct.
	No.
	Do you remember in your deposition, sir, I asked you about Robbie Parker, right?
	Yes.
	And you always called Robbie Parker an actor many times, didn't you?
	No, I said it looked like he was acting.
	You said it looked like he was acting?
	The internet is a huge thing.
	Mr. Jones, is your testimony?
	My blank wasn't permitted to finish his answer.
	These are not yesterday.
	I'm sorry, because now I've lost a question.
	So can you ask the question?
	You know what?
	Let's do it this way.
	Mr. Jones, would you agree with me that if somebody were to lie about a group of people And call them actors.
	And having faked their children's death, that would be a horrible thing to say about someone.
	I'm not called a liar.
	As to the vouching improper form, it's a contrarian voucher.
	Nobody cares whether he agrees with Mr. Mayor.
	Alright, sustained.
	Mr. Jones.
	If someone were to falsely claim that a group of families who had lost wealth The deaths of their loved ones.
	That would be a horrible thing to say, correct?
	In the context that it could be, yes.
	It could be.
	And if somebody were to spread that claim to millions and millions and millions of people, one would expect those families who have been falsely accused to be damaged, correct?
	Yes or no, sir?
	I cannot answer this question truthfully without violating the court's order.
	Well, why don't we have an invocation then?
	What's an invocation?
	Oh, no, wait, Judge.
	This is improper.
	I'm going to reject.
	So, why don't I excuse the jury for a minute?
	This shouldn't be too long.
	Okay, so the question again.
	We had an agreement that if there was going to be any Fifth Amendment claim to be done outside the presence of the jury, and then we're asking for an invocation.
	When you say we had an agreement, you and the attorney?
	Well, no, the attorney has requested that.
	I wasn't prepared for him to invoke on that question.
	Well, I don't know.
	I wasn't part of that agreement.
	I'd answer in order that if there's going to be any further effort to evoke the Fifth Amendment or to elicit a Fifth Amendment in response to be done outside the presence of the jury.
	That's fine, but that's not what I was doing.
	me i think the question will show that there's no valid assertion all right well why don't can you can you give me the question again or do you want me to play it back yes why don't we play back okay take your time madam
	we're actors in faith the deaths of their brothers that would be a horrible thing to say correct in the context of it could be yes okay
	and and so we would spread that word to millions and millions of people what would expect those families who have been falsely abused you can have destroyed judge you have a great number yes sir i i cannot answer this question truthfully without solid let's work well i have education then what's the medication
	i'm going to wait here's can you we need all right just go back just before anybody else okay
	so we alerted the court earlier on that there may be an unusual fifth amendment issue in this case arising from the law of the case mr johnson suffered a disciplinary default in this case resulting in his inability to contest liability um The court has established during the law the case that...
	Can we just back up for a second?
	So the question wasn't about Mr. Jones specifically, although maybe it was getting there.
	The question was, if someone spread that claim to millions and millions of people, one would expect people to be damaged.
	There's no...
	No, you're missing a predicate in there, falsely.
	if they falsely spread this information.
	Right, but this is not talking about Mr. Jones or free speech systems.
	This was a hypothetical.
	He's not an expert, and he can't be questioned as an expert.
	He's here as a fact witness.
	And the fact that this is an attempt to sidestep the rule, we once again have the motion to illuminate be used as a sword rather than a shield.
	We didn't make motions to illuminate to limit this material.
	The plaintiffs did.
	The contention here is that Mr. Jones, the law of the case is that the court has concluded these statements were false, not because they were litigated, but because of failure to comply with the scarlet.
	We can't talk about that.
	The plaintiffs have earned the right to call him a liar in open court.
	Whether we agree or not, that's the law of the case.
	What they've not done is earned the right to put him in a position where he either disagrees with their characterization of him, thus running a follow-up prior ruling of the court, or agrees with them, thus committing perjury.
	We would go further and say that if we get to a point where an invocation is necessary, they're not entitled to an adverse inference because that is giving undue So, Attorney Pavis, if you...
	If his answer, his true answer, how would it violate the order, is if he says he denies the extent of the damage.
	I don't know that that's responsive to the question, candidly.
	Yeah, so, Your Honor, I think what's happening here is we have a sidewalk.
	I said, I'll do it a different way.
	And so I came back here, and instead of telling Mr. Jones that he had lied, I said, if one did, that would cause damage.
	Who cares?
	Well, I think, well, so I think it's got to be asked in a way that, and I don't want to tell you how to ask it, but...
	You know, this is...
	No, no, let me just...
	I'm sorry.
	...get it out.
	Where we're not putting Mr. Jones in a pickle, but where the jury understands that the issue's been decided, which they've been told many, many times now.
	So can you think of a way to do it along those lines?
	So here, the court has already I've determined that liability is not an issue.
	The jury is just determining damages.
	And so what's the question for Mr. Jones?
	No, there is no...
	First of all, he's a defendant.
	This isn't impeachment on credibility grounds.
	The question is, rather than ask him directly where he now thinks a truthful answer would somehow incriminate himself, I've asked him One would expect that if one were to do these things, it would cause harm.
	Now, Attorney Pattis is still free to argue at any point that the harm caused here wasn't what the plaintiffs allege.
	That's what he's apparently claiming.
	But Mr. Jones' response to that question, if the answer is yes, one would expect that type of harm, that doesn't violate the court's orders and it's not false.
	If the answer That doesn't violate the court's orders, and it's not false, right?
	So either one, he can testify truthfully without violating the court's order and putting himself in conscience.
	Or I don't know.
	Or I don't know.
	The problem with that judge is it's argumentative in tone.
	He's not an expert.
	And so what one does isn't what we're here to show.
	We're here to show what he did.
	Right, but that's a different-- Attorney Pattis?
	How many times do I have to say when I'm speaking, you stop.
	You have been a member of the bar for a long, long time.
	And you know the rules in all the courts.
	So, your objection was that it was a motion eliminate issue, I thought.
	That it would require him to lie.
	I now hear that it's a different objection.
	That it's speculative.
	He's not an expert.
	I'm waiting to finish, so I don't want to follow your order.
	I have been an officer for a long time, and as you know, I insist on making my record, so thank you, and I'm sorry that I stepped on your question.
	I thought I wasn't done.
	What I was trying to say was to follow up.
	I objected because he's trying to get an evocation in the jury's presence, which is entirely a problem, without permission of the court.
	I objected further because he I can't disagree with that, so I will sustain the objection, and where does that leave us with respect to possible future invocation?
	If there's going to be an invocation, I've requested it to be outside the jury's presence so that I can argue about whether the plaintiffs are in time.
	Alright, so how does that work procedurally?
	So there's a question.
	You're going to invoke on his behalf?
	I can't do that, I don't think.
	I'm in the curious process.
	I'll argue about it.
	I'll simply say motion about that location.
	Okay.
	Does that work, Attorney Maddie?
	Sure, that's fine.
	Okay.
	So, if that happens, Mr. Dabba, uh, Mr. Jones, if that happens, just put the brakes on, right?
	so she can do it.
	Okay, let's bring the jury out.
	So, can I just see counsel in the meantime?
	So, I can count on one hand.
	How many times I've argued?
	I've argued when you've done it.
	I've been born my entire career.
	I've been raised to be a work out.
	And you stop going to die.
	You've got to do that for me.
	You have a good record.
	You're right.
	You're right.
	That's a positive note.
	Judge, here's the deal.
	I'm an advocate.
	I get lost in the moment.
	You've admonished me and I'm working on it.
	You're standing up for it.
	Right?
	I'm a member of Advocates Anonymous, Judge.
	If I warm too much to my clients cause that's why courts are here to assure fair trials.
	Okay, welcome back.
	As promised, we were pretty quick, so thank you for your patience.
	Please be seated.
	The record will reflect that our entire panel has returned.
	Let's give them a minute to settle in.
	And whenever you're ready to turn your back, please.
	Thank you, Your Honor.
	You remember in your deposition, sir, you referred to...
	I asked you some questions about Robbie Parker, correct?
	I'm sorry, say that again?
	I asked you some questions about Robbie Parker.
	Yes.
	I showed you some videos, right?
	Yes.
	And I showed you a video where you were describing not just one parent, but a bunch of parents coming up and doing the fake crying and the laughing.
	Remember that video?
	No, I don't.
	Why don't we show...
	19... 19...
	Which exhibit is this?
	I'm sorry.
	Nineteen?
	Nineteen I. A as in?
	19 I thank you CNN admits they had fake scut attacks on themselves back in 1991 1990 Would they stage this?
	I don't know.
	The penguins live in Antarctica?
	Wolfgang W. Halberg is our guest, former state police officer in the North of the Customs Department, and then over the last decades created one of the biggest, most successful school safety training groups, and he just is not an James
	Jones, does that refresh your recollection about referring to not just one parent, but a bunch of parents doing the fake crime and the laughing?
	Yes, it does.
	And when you were deposed, you acknowledged, did you not, that you had referred to the parents who had brought this case as actors.
	Didn't you acknowledge that then?
	I mean, the only person's name I ever said was Robbie Parker.
	But I guess that's close from like seven years ago or wherever it is.
	I'm sorry so the question was you remember in your deposition where you acknowledged that the families who had brought this case you would call actors remember that testimony sir I think we've had like four depositions.
	Which one was it?
	Do you remember you were in my office?
	Yes.
	We were in a conference room?
	Yes.
	Okay, I was sitting just about as far as I am from the court quarter from you.
	I'm trying to remember that we've had quite a few.
	You and I have only had two in person, correct?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Several over the...
	We had one by Zoom, correct?
	No, we had two.
	All right.
	Well, Mr. Johns, I'm talking about the ones when you were in person sitting right next to Okay, that's why I'm trying to refresh my memory.
	So, am I correct that during that deposition, you acknowledged under oath that you had referred to these families as actors?
	I don't remember the testimony, but I've never even seen their faces until they sued me.
	I don't know.
	So I can't answer your question.
	I don't have the answer to that.
	You just don't remember that testimony is your answer, right?
	I believe it's the same testimony I gave her today.
	Okay.
	Well, why don't we, may I approach it?
	You might.
	Okay.
	Mr. Jones, I'm going to ask you for page 252.
	You see this question where I say, I'm asking.
	Would you do it, sir?
	This is Mr. Jones' step decision.
	Well, there are four of them.
	Which one is that?
	April 5th, 2022. Page 252. Thank you.
	I'm asking if you'd agree with that.
	You've given me two options here.
	One option is it's just an actor playing the character.
	The other option is it's somebody who is really who they say they are, but they're going along with the official script.
	Those are the options you gave me.
	Answer, yes.
	That's what you said, right?
	Yes.
	The first question, the first option, Robin Parker is an actor creating a role.
	In that circumstance, Robin Parker is just a fictitious character, correct?
	What'd you say?
	Yes.
	That's role-playing.
	You said yes, right?
	Yeah.
	In that question, in that context, Remember,
	in your deposition you acknowledged that for this hoax to work, it couldn't just be Robbie Parker who was an actor.
	They all had to be in on it.
	Correct?
	You've refreshed my memory.
	I believe I was answering your hypothetical questions.
	Okay.
	Listen to the question I just asked.
	You acknowledged in your deposition that when you were calling this a hoax, Moved to strike, Your Honor.
	Sustained.
	Can you answer that question, sir?
	Can you refresh me with a transcript?
	Sure.
	The last one is very helpful.
	In fact, let's just pull it up for everybody.
	So this is the exhibit.
	One moment, you're all right.
	We have this clip, right?
	Sorry, I need to move it.
	I want you to play a portion of Mr. Jones's deposition.
	It's an admission.
	What was the exhibit number on this, Jay?
	It's not an exhibit, it's an admission, but we'll get you the number for the deposition.
	Thank you.
	Thank you for your patience.
	No problem.
	Thank you.
	While we're doing that, Mr. Jones, what's a Potemkin village?
	A Potemkin village, I believe, goes back to examples like the – before the Russian Revolution, they would – czars would build fake villages for PR stunts.
	And I think there was some – I forget the exact historic nature of it.
	I may be wrong about that.
	It's something to do with Russian history and government staging events.
	Right.
	And this Potemkin village would be filled with people that play parts, as if they were villagers, correct?
	Yes.
	Actors in a hoax that the government would stage.
	It's like the Truman Show.
	The Truman Show, that's a movie, yes?
	Yes.
	Where this fake village is plopped down and everybody who populates it is in on the hoax, yes?
	I think that's what the movie's about.
	And that's what a contempt and village is, to your understanding.
	It's got a lot of definitions, but I think that's a fair one.
	Is that about right?
	Is that how you were using it when you were deposed?
	You just have to refresh my memory.
	That's what we're trying to do here. - All right.
	- All right, go play now.
	- Sorry, guys, what he said in your business? - Your claim, in response to my question, that there's a fictitious person named Roddy Parker with an actor playing, you'd agree with me that by going in front of the cameras in the millions and millions of people, there would be somebody who would know, hey, I know that guy.
	That's not Robbie Parker.
	Right?
	Just answer that question.
	Do you think that, is that a reasonable expectation?
	No.
	Okay.
	And if somebody By protecting village,
	you mean everybody who was in the immediate community would have been in on it.
	Well, they set that up during World War II. No, no, no, no.
	That's what you mean, that everybody in the community is in on it.
	Not everybody, but in a close-knit area.
	Which would mean, certainly all the parents of children who were killed would have to be part of that conspiracy, right?
	Right.
	or let anything happen.
	That'd be a good time for lunch break, Your Honor.
	I think so.
	You are, I just need to know what exhibit that was.
	Can we get that, too?
	Yes, this is maybe it was 372.
	372?
	Yes, Your Honor.
	Okay, so we will take our lunch break, we'll We'll be back right for 2 p.m.
	It is as imperative as always that you continue to obey the rules of juror conduct.
	Ron will take your notepads.
	if you go out i'm not sure what the weather's like it's hard to tell but if you do venture out just make sure that as you come back in you avoid any of the witnesses or parties or lawyers associated with the case and any media that you might see so i hope everyone has a nice lunch
	hello hello welcome back from lunch break good afternoon everyone please be seated when you find your your seats
	We're doing a little silent seats.
	Counsel, will stipulate that the entire panel has returned?
	Yes.
	Yes, Your Honor.
	Let's be seated.
	It's all comfortable, Mr. Jones.
	I'll let Mr. Furrow hand out the notepads.
	Thank you.
	Thank you, Mr. Furrow.
	Whenever you're ready, Attorney Maddie, you may continue.
	Mr. Jones, do you remember before the break I showed a video of your deposition?
	And in that video, what you were acknowledging is that your claims that the parents were actors.
	Do you remember that?
	No, it was a hypothetical about a Potemkin village.
	That's what you think that was?
	Let's play it again.
	Can we pull up, please, that clip?
	Watch out, Mr. Jones.
	What exhibit is that?
	370.
	Thank you.
	There's a fictitious person in Roddy Parker with an actor playing.
	You'd agree with me that by going in front of the cameras and millions and millions of people, there would be somebody who would know, hey, I know that guy.
	That's not Robbie Parker.
	Right?
	Just answer that question.
	Do you think that...
	Is that a reasonable expectation?
	No.
	Okay.
	And...
	If someone were recognized...
	It's a little bit of a village.
	If someone were to recognize the person playing Robbie Parker is, in fact, Robbie Parker.
	Who is it?
	Take your time.
	Your claim, in response to my question, that there's a fictitious person named Robbie Parker with an actor playing him, you'd agree with me that by going in front of the camera to millions and millions of people, there would you'd agree with me that by going in front of the camera to millions and millions of people, there would That's not Robbie Parker.
	Right?
	Just answer that question.
	Do you think that, is that a reasonable expectation?
	No.
	- Oh, okay. - Okay. - And if somebody were recognized-- - It's a bunch of ability.
	If somebody were to recognize the person playing Robbie Parker is, in fact, Robbie Parker, that would blow the whole post, right?
	Objection.
	Derek, do you know what a Potemkin Village is?
	Answer my question.
	None of this is a Potemkin Village.
	Okay.
	By Potemkin Village, you mean everybody who was in the immediate community Everybody
	in the community.
	Not everybody, but at a close knit.
	Which would mean it's certainly all the parents of children who were killed would have to be part of that conspiracy, right?
	Or maybe it didn't even happen, it's a little bit more saying.
	So they're clearly actors.
	And what you're describing for me is a conspiracy in which, where there is a mass shooting, that everybody involved in the mass shooting has to be in on the hooks, right?
	For it to work.
	And in that circumstance, if everybody's in on the hoax, that means that there were never any children to begin with, right?
	Yes.
	Because it wouldn't be believable that only You say the school was only open as a cutout, right?
	And what you mean by cutout is basically a set as if in a movie or a play.
	So this was basically just a fake set And you say that it was closed right before the shooting, right?
	The school itself.
	Yes.
	That's your testimony, right, Mr. Johnson?
	That's a yes or no question.
	It's highly edited.
	No, that's not my testimony.
	Was that you speaking?
	Objection.
	I mean, I said it in the interview.
	I thought it happened.
	It was edited.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	You just air it.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	This was your deposition testimony, was it not, that I just played?
	Yes, clips of it.
	And you acknowledged during your deposition that you had said that the parents were clearly actors.
	Quote, clearly actors, correct?
	No, I said it looked like that Robbie Parker was active.
	Mr. Jones, are you aware, having watched some of this trial, that this jury has actually seen a lot of your videos already?
	Sir, please just, if you can answer my question, are you aware, having watched some of the trial, that this jury has already seen a lot of the videos that you made about Sandy Hook?
	Yes, Judge.
	And do you know?
	Sustained.
	Oops, straight.
	So ordered.
	Mr. Jones, did you watch the parts of the trial where I showed a video of you saying that parents were clearly actors?
	Did you watch that part?
	I don't remember.
	Okay.
	You're not telling this jury that you never said there were clearly You're not telling this jury that you never said they were clearly actors, right?
	No, I'm not telling you.
	Do you acknowledge you said that?
	I said it looked like some might have been.
	And we just saw you say, when I asked you what you meant by a cutout, and you acknowledged that you meant that it was just a set on which this fake hoax could play out, right?
	You see that testimony there?
	You were asking me a hypothetical of what it is, yes.
	Do you want to strike your arm?
	So when you call, let's do it this way.
	You acknowledge that among the things that you said about Sandy Hook was that it was fake, yes?
	Yes.
	Synthetic?
	Yes.
	Manufactured?
	Yes.
	With actors?
	Yes.
	Total hoax?
	Yes.
	You acknowledge that repeatedly you mocked parents by saying that they had done the No, not parents.
	I said, brother, look fake to me.
	Did you remember the video we just saw earlier in which you said, it's not just one, you have a bunch of parents doing that.
	Do you remember?
	I told you I didn't say their names, so I can't say I said the parents.
	So, did you remember when we just played a video, not long ago, that I showed you on this very point where you said, it's not just one parent doing this, Yes, sir.
	You chose to say that.
	Nobody made you say that, right?
	Yes, sir.
	Now, Mr. Jones, am I correct that over time there have been many instances in which you have learned that there are members of your audience who have been provoked to violence by you?
	Objection at the forum, am I correct?
	Nobody cares about Mr. Jones.
	No.
	I'm not correct about that.
	That, to this day, you're- Just one second, sorry, Maddie.
	If your client is going to speak through your objection, there's nothing I can do about it at this point.
	So, should I remind him again?
	Yes, please.
	So, Mr. Jones, when your attorney objects, just stop speaking so that I can rule up.
	You're getting your answer out before I can- I understand.
	Okay.
	You expect, of your many, many, many millions of audience members, And many of them believe what you said, right?
	Yes.
	And you know that over time, members of your audience have committed violence, correct?
	That question is, I can't answer that.
	You don't know the answer to that, is what you're saying?
	I mean, yeah.
	And you familiar with a 2011 Rolling Stone article in which you were profiled?
	Vaguely.
	You say vaguely.
	Isn't that an article that you prominently featured on your website?
	There's not a lot of articles on the website.
	Okay.
	Well, let me see if I can refresh your recollection.
	Why don't we pull up Exhibit 74?
	That is the former Exhibit, Your Honor.
	Thank you.
	And let's go down a page.
	Okay, here we go, right?
	You recognize that this was part of your website.
	In which you were telling your audience all about you, about Alex Jones, right?
	And when, Judge?
	Sustained.
	This is an evidence with a date, Your Honor.
	My client needs to know the date.
	Well, let me ask them.
	So let's go back to the top.
	This is a web page of yours that's about Alex Jones, right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And if we go, and you don't dispute that you publish this, yes?
	It looks like an old, no, it looks like my site.
	Yeah.
	And if we go down to the bottom...
	Go ahead, yeah, let's pull that up.
	You can see here, Mr. Jones, that you Quoted a 2011 Rolling Stone article, right?
	Yes, I mean, I acknowledge there's been a lot of Rolling Stone articles.
	How many have there been about you?
	A lot of a few.
	Okay.
	Is this the only one that you featured on your website?
	I don't remember any of those.
	All right.
	You don't remember any of what?
	I mean, I vaguely remember what you're talking about.
	So I said yes.
	Do you remember that you were profiled in 2011 in Rolling Stone, yes?
	Same answer I gave a few minutes ago, yes.
	And you decided to feature that, quotes from that article, on your website, right?
	Somebody did, yes.
	Is this your website?
	Do you take responsibility for anything, Mr. Johnson?
	No, but I mean...
	Did you actually do the forum move to strike down?
	Most of them.
	And in this 2011 Rolling Stone article, you actually cooperated with the author.
	You gave him an interview, did you not?
	I remember the interview now.
	I've never seen his name.
	And in that interview, you told the author, quote, Some unstable people are drawn to the bright flame of enlightenment.
	That is so-called conspiracy culture.
	Some trees are going to become uprooted in a storm like this, but we can't stop telling the truth for fear of what telling the truth is going to do.
	Do you remember that?
	I do.
	Okay, that's what you said, right?
	Yes.
	Some people become uprooted, don't they?
	Right?
	In whole culture, yes.
	People in your audience, right?
	I'm just speaking in general.
	And these are people that you use, don't you?
	No.
	Okay.
	What about Dan Badani?
	You know Dan Badani?
	Yes.
	Dan Badani was an employee of yours, correct?
	Briefly, full-time, then did some stuff for us, yes.
	Yeah.
	And when you got sued, you were very, very nervous about being connected to Dan Badani, weren't you?
	No, I mean, I liked Dan, but he was, I mean, I like Dan.
	Is that a no?
	You weren't nervous about being connected to him?
	I mean, later when he did some things we didn't like, I said we couldn't work with him anymore.
	I'm talking about when you were sued.
	When you were sued here, 2018, remember that?
	Yes.
	One of the first things you did was direct Rob Dew to figure out when was the last time you paid Dan Benanti, isn't it?
	I don't remember that.
	You don't?
	Do you deny it?
	No, I mean this.
	And during your first deposition in Texas, you said under oath that the last thing Dan Benanti ever did for you was cover the Boston Marathon bombing, correct?
	Alright.
	I mean, it all just plays together.
	This is years ago.
	I don't remember.
	No, sir.
	You weren't deposed years ago.
	You were test.
	You testified.
	I wasn't deposed years ago?
	You testified in Texas.
	Did you not?
	That the last thing Dan Vidani ever did for you was cover the Boston Marathon.
	Do you not know if you testified to that?
	objection I don't remember let's pull up exhibit 185 this This is in evidence.
	It is a full exhibit.
	Let's just pull up the header and the first sentence there.
	This is from Rob Du, right?
	Yes.
	Rob Du, one of your longtime top employees, correct?
	Yes.
	In fact, Rob Dew came up to Connecticut with you for your deposition, right?
	Yes.
	And he came up to Connecticut with you for your travel testimony.
	He's here right now.
	Yes.
	And Rob Dew is emailing Melinda Flores.
	Melinda is your bookkeeper, correct?
	Was.
	Was.
	And Tim Fruget, that's your longtime business director, correct?
	Yes.
	And he's copying an M. Balin at Baker Law.
	That's one of your lawyers, right?
	Was.
	He was at this time, yes?
	Yes.
	And what's the date?
	5-24-8-2.
	Right.
	And the subject?
	It says, from what I can tell, we paid our last invoice to Dan on January 2016. The invoice was from December 2015, right?
	That's what it says?
	It does say that.
	And this is the day after you were sued by these families that Rob Dew's looking into this, right?
	I don't remember this.
	Right?
	You don't remember?
	The question is, was this the day after you were sued?
	If you tell me so.
	No, sir.
	You're the witness here.
	I don't remember.
	Well, let me see if I can refresh your recollection.
	Let's bring up that, the complaint we were looking at earlier.
	You remember we were looking at your lawsuit earlier where you sued somebody else?
	Yes.
	And let's go down page.
	Let's go to paragraph 5.
	May 23rd, 2018, Infowars, Jones' employer was sued by a range of people, including those related to the victims of the Sandy Hook shooting.
	I read that right?
	Yes.
	So if that's true, and this is your complaint, right?
	Yes.
	Robb knew that day after...
	It's trying to figure out when Dan Badani last worked for you guys, right?
	I guess that's an email, yes.
	And then, pull that down.
	I think your testimony is that you don't recall whether you said the last thing he ever covered for you was the Boston Marathon box, right?
	I don't remember any of this, yes.
	And the reason...
	That you were so concerned about Dan Badandi is because you knew exactly what you had him do for you, right?
	No.
	When you would send Dan Badandi on a mission, what would you call him?
	All sorts of names, I don't know.
	Why don't we see if we can refresh your recollection.
	Let's play Exhibit 11.
	Did you ever try to send my banana when we said, "No, I should..." What?
	"Release the Kraken." It's hilarious, isn't it, Mr. Johnson?
	I mean, I don't know the context of the clip.
	We are laughing.
	Yeah.
	You can't tell from the clip what the context is?
	No.
	And when you send Dan Badandi on a mission, you know the Kraken is, that's a mythological monster, correct?
	Yes.
	And when you release Mr. Badandi, it's because you want him to behave exactly in that way, right?
	I don't know what specifics you're talking about.
	Should I refresh your memory?
	Let me do that.
	Let me refresh your memory about what happens when you send Mr. Badani on a mission.
	C-Z-27, Your Honor.
	It is a full certificate, Your Honor.
	Thank you.
	C-Z-27, Your Honor.
	You guys trying to put a rough standing up?
	Retirement huh?
	Wow.
	The truth's coming out.
	We know you guys have a course from...
	Get out of the eye to speak to us.
	Good time for retirement.
	Good time for retirement.
	Just speak to us.
	See you in the slide folks right there.
	Sandy Hook, the police chief, right there, when he first retired, he's not answering the questions and he's leaving for a moment.
	Yeah.
	Retirement, huh?
	Charlie Frank, do you know about the police chief from his hired to a walk-up?
	How do you guys feel like the power of the Nazis?
	I don't know.
	Do you see the blind folks right there?
	Do you see the people who are trying to cry?
	Yeah, he's barking up down the stairs.
	This is probably going down the stairs, buddy.
	What's this guy doing right now?
	He's a criminal in front of us walking on a path down in a warm way.
	And this ain't gonna block us.
	You got to kick my way up the road for anything?
	Yeah.
	What do you got?
	I'm going to throw you a piece of shit.
	I love you.
	We're retiring, huh?
	How's the retirement matter?
	Are you trying to throw them up, Sandy?
	We know you have communication with a helicopter.
	That's a photo of all, sir.
	I'm a pilot myself, so you're not holding up with me.
	Oh, thank you.
	You know, the information doesn't come up.
	You want that, right?
	You people who are going to jail, you can lie down the camp.
	Will!
	I'm not okay.
	I'm not getting that sick, my team.
	Retirement.
	Wow.
	That's great.
	I hope you enjoy that retirement.
	Sir, are you planning to do the fact that Sandy Hope was a cover?
	Sir, are you watching around the police chief of Sandy Hope there at Newtown Connecticut?
	Yeah.
	He's covering up the whole operation.
	They had a communication with the helicopter.
	They're lying on the stand.
	Oh, that's Prager.
	Sir, you know what Prager is?
	You got nothing to hide, just speak to us, sir.
	Yeah, you got nothing to hide, just speak to us.
	Take a moment to speak with us.
	Sir, you know your wife up here, right?
	That's the Kraken, right?
	Damian Dottie?
	That's, that's...
	That's what I've got.
	And you thought so highly of Dan Badani that you actually allowed him to I have a host and memory serves.
	The first time I saw this was a few years ago.
	What year do you think this was?
	I don't remember.
	Your testimony is the first time you saw this was like a few years ago?
	I mean, can you refresh my memory?
	Do you need your memory refresh?
	Yeah, I don't remember what happened two weeks ago on my show.
	A lot of on-air stuff.
	That just doesn't look like our graphics.
	Go ahead, keep playing.
	We'll see if we can help you with this.
	You've got nothing behind to speak to us.
	We're going to jail, criminal!
	Yes, sir, it's going to be critical how you feel about that.
	You know, this guy here is somebody out of Central Castle and I'm trying to miss his exact person that they would hire to represent criminals folks.
	If Sandy and Hope Truth is coming out, you people go to jail.
	You can spy all you want if you're going to jail for fraud.
	Paying a second.
	Alright, you're going to get credentials there with that on the info was that on the number one alternative news source in the world.
	You know, live right on the end.
	What do you have to say about defending criminals?
	What do you say?
	You're saying Mr. Jones is live right on the air.
	I'm not understanding what you're trying to say.
	Did you hear him say that?
	What did you say in that video to the people he was harassing that they were live on the air?
	Yes.
	Are you familiar with your corporate representative's testimony that in fact this had been streamed through InfoWars?
	Are you familiar with that testimony?
	I'm not familiar with that, and I don't really get the point you're getting at.
	Mr. Jones?
	Yeah.
	It's not for you to get the point.
	It's for the jury.
	Okay?
	Objection.
	Move to strike dead again.
	So, Mr. Jones.
	It's not Mr. Jones' testimony.
	I'm moving you straight.
	Excuse me.
	I'm speaking.
	So listen to the question that's asked and answer the question that's asked.
	Your answer was not responsible in any way, shape, or form.
	So I can have the monitor read it back, or I can have Mr. Maggie read it.
	Ask the question again.
	Just listen to the question that's asked and answer that question.
	So whether or not you get the point of where Mr. Dabby was going with it, it's not a concern.
	My objection was to the gratuitous comments.
	To the extent there were any gratuitous comments by anyone, we're strict.
	Mr. Matt, do you want me to have the monitor place a question back, or do you have it?
	That's not necessary, Your Honor.
	Because I think, ultimately, where you're going to land, Mr. Jones, is that you just don't know whether this was streamed by InfoWars, right?
	Yes, I know we put some stuff on air.
	This looks like his show he would do to put InfoWars on it.
	I know he had his own streaming show.
	That's why I can't answer the question.
	I don't know.
	All right, so I'm gonna move to strike that part and the answer is you don't.
	I don't know You do know That after this Mr. Badan he came back on to talk about Sandy Hook right?
	I believe they had him on some shows.
	Yes You had him on, didn't you?
	I had him on some.
	I can't remember all the days.
	And what you wanted him on to talk about was this new revelation that an FBI agent, John Dew, Rob Dew's uncle, was now investigating Sandy Hook, correct?
	I do remember that that happened.
	Yeah.
	And I think you titled that video, "Mega Massive Cover-Up: FBI Agent Now Investigating Sandy Hook," right?
	Someone titled it that, probably me.
	And are you familiar with Rob Dew's testimony that the reality is he doesn't even know if his uncle was a janitor for the FBI?
	Do you wear that?
	I think that was a sarcastic comment.
	Did you ask him that?
	Moonstrike.
	Are you aware that that was his testimony?
	I think I heard about his second hand.
	For who, Rob?
	Yes, he said it was a joke.
	Oh, he did?
	As we said?
	Yeah.
	He was under oath when he made that joke.
	Like I told you, I heard it secondhand.
	Is Rob in the area today?
	I think he is.
	Does he look close by?
	I'm not sure where he's at right now.
	Would you be willing to present him to testify here?
	Objection, Judge.
	Sustained.
	There's an objection heading.
	It's been sustained.
	I can't keep telling your client that.
	If he wants to keep answering, I can only say it so many times.
	I finally shot myself that time.
	In addition to Dan Badani, are you familiar with a gentleman named Matthew Mills?
	No.
	Do you recall in your deposition, I showed you a broadcast of your show in which you had invited somebody on named Matthew Mills that had infiltrated the Super Bowl?
	You mean a caller?
	I do remember that now, yes.
	What do you remember about that?
	I vaguely remember.
	I remember that name about a caller from the Super Bowl.
	So somebody just called into your show, you didn't know who he was?
	Can you refresh my memory?
	I can if you need a refresh.
	I'm trying to help you, so I'm actually trying to answer the questions, but I don't have all the answers.
	Okay, because what you just said, and please don't help me, I just want you to testify truthfully.
	If the answer, you kind of volunteered that somebody had called in.
	But the reality is that you don't know whether that's true or not, right?
	Yes, so much.
	I remember that name.
	Maybe you brought it up to me in deposition or something.
	And so, the video you remember is of you interviewing somebody who had infiltrated the Super Bowl.
	Do you remember at least that much?
	Yes.
	Your Honor, this is not yet in evidence.
	If I can get the right number here.
	This is Exhibit 13, Your Honor.
	I'm going to go over to the next slide.
	I'd offer it.
	No foundation as yet.
	I agree.
	Your Honor, it might be useful for me to lay the foundation outside the presence of the jury.
	Mr. Jones could look at it.
	He can't look at it on his own screen.
	Unless we have headphones because it's a video.
	Oh, okay.
	Alright, so this will be a quick one.
	You can leave your notepads and Ron will take you into the room.
	Please be seated.
	All right, Mr. Jones.
	Hello.
	Why don't we pull up first page 662 of volume 2 of Mr. Jones' deposition.
	Which deposition, sir?
	April 6th, line 22. 662, line 12. line 12.
	I'm trying to do this quickly.
	you are.
	Now, Mr. Jones, you recall that in your deposition I asked you about this video and I played it for you?
	No, I remember vaguely.
	Okay, all right.
	And I represent to the court and counsel that the deposition testimony we're about to review relates to the same exhibit that's being offered here.
	I accept the representation may I approach her?
	Amen.
	Amen.
	Thank you.
	I'm showing you page 662. Question, are you familiar with a gentleman named Matthew Mills?
	Answer, it doesn't ring a bell.
	Question, okay, let me see if I can refresh your recollection.
	Do you recall interviewing a gentleman who had infiltrated a precedent at the Super Bowl?
	Answer, no.
	In 2014, no.
	And he had snuck into the press vent and grabbed a microphone and said that 9-11 was perpetrated by the U.S. government.
	Answer, I do remember that now.
	Question, that's ringing your bell, and you have that gentleman, Matthew Mills, on the air?
	Correct?
	Answer, yes.
	You were called interviewing him now.
	Answer, now, yeah.
	And then we played that.
	According to the transcript, you're going to play better.
	Yeah, I don't know.
	Okay.
	I don't offer, Your Honor.
	No, okay.
	Whenever you're ready, Your Honor.
	That's all right.
	Hold on.
	I figured we were making your notes there.
	You know what, Your Honor, I could have done that with the jury here.
	It just didn't occur to me at first.
	May I speak to Attorney Manning briefly?
	You may.
	I'm just going to play.
	I'm not going to do close.
	I'm just going to play.
	I'm going to teach.
	I'm just going to play.
	I'm just going to play.
	I'm just going to play.
	I'm just going to play.
	Thank you for your patience.
	We will acquit his promise.
	All right.
	Please be seated, Councilor.
	We'll stipulate that our entire panel is present. - Thank you. - Oh, may I proceed, Jurnah?
	Thank you.
	Mr. Jones, while the jury was out, we were able to refer Matthew Mills on your Alex Jones show, correct?
	Yes.
	This has been offered and admitted as the Alex Jones And
	And he joins us now, a listener of The Transmission.
	I had a good feeling that he was a listener.
	We checked it out online, found some of his work, knew he was.
	But he's a listener via YouTube, a viewer via YouTube, like so many tens of millions a week are.
	And he joins us, Matthew Mills.
	Matthew, closing comments, I just want to tell you.
	I really admire your work, and you're the kind of stand-up guy.
	You're the kind of guy we need as an East Coast reporter.
	We don't have the money to have you full-time.
	We can pay you when you go out on events.
	In the future, you're the type of guy that would be cheaper than Senator Cary.
	He's a great guy, you know, all the way from Texas to the East Coast.
	Well, maybe we should talk about, we're talking about hiring Sergeant Biggs right now and workforce as a reporter as well.
	But, you know, I think you've got what it takes.
	Because, you know, you got in there and you did it, buddy.
	You've got the right stuff, so we salute you.
	How would you like to go on assignment at least once a month for us on the East Coast to get paid to do it?
	I would love to do it, Kyle.
	Yeah, I think you're a real company on the team.
	So, you know, what else is going on, brother?
	Anything else you want to add?
	I think we kind of covered it all.
	You know, I'm getting a little bit excited about you right now.
	I mean, listen, I don't get excited about Peyton Manning and football.
	I mean, I get excited about what you did.
	I want to sneak into Bohemian Grove again, or I want to sneak into Skeleton Bones.
	I want to sneak in and expose these corrupt garbage heads.
	I mean, I love you blowing their operation and watching them run around like chickens with their heads cut off.
	You know what a big fan of you I am right now?
	Let me hear your war ground right now.
	Ah!
	And this broadcast went up to millions and millions of people, right?
	The Super Bowl?
	No, no, this wasn't the Super Bowl.
	It wasn't the Super Bowl.
	This is your broadcast.
	That's what I'm asking you about.
	I don't know how many went out that day, but definitely a lot.
	Hundreds of thousands at least.
	All of them are watching you praise Matthew Mills, right?
	Objection.
	I believe that there's a cover-up 9-11.
	I'm not asking about your beliefs about 9-11.
	You were praising Matthew Mills, right?
	Before 9-11, before he did the Super Bowl.
	Right.
	He infiltrated the Super Bowl, right?
	Yeah, I thought that was good civil action.
	Let's just see if we can do yes or no, okay?
	Okay.
	He took over the stage at the post-Super Bowl press conference, yes?
	Yes.
	He yelled into the microphone as the MVP was being interviewed that 9-11 was staged by criminal elements of the United States government?
	Yes.
	You admired that about him, right?
	Yes.
	You communicated to your audience that you admired that about him.
	Yes.
	You even offered him the job on air, yes?
	Yes.
	You called him a soldier, right?
	Yes.
	Anything else you want to add, soldier, right?
	You said he was a big fan of yours, right?
	Yes.
	He'd been following your work for a long time.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And then he said, hey, I've got a couple other things I'd like to infiltrate.
	I could talk to you about off air, right?
	Right?
	Yes.
	This is February 2014, right?
	I believe that's the name you said.
	You know he was arrested for trespassing at the Super Bowl?
	I don't remember.
	Do you know he was arrested in Connecticut a little over a year later?
	I do remember this story now.
	I remember exactly what he did, but I remember something about it.
	You remember enough to know that the next event he infiltrated was the Vicki Soto Memorial 5K, right?
	Objection, argument, not an evidence.
	You don't know that?
	I mean, we never hired him.
	I never really talked.
	I don't think I ever talked to him again after that.
	You don't know, though, do you, Mr. Johnson?
	Well, I mean, it'd be in our records.
	You've got all our records.
	Wait a minute.
	If you had a phone call with Matthew Mills after this and he said, I've got a couple other things I'd like to infiltrate I want to talk to you about.
	Okay.
	Where would that be?
	Why don't you call him and ask him?
	Oh, we know.
	I'm asking you now.
	Did you talk to him?
	I think during the break, going to break.
	And it wasn't very coherent, but this was for a long time ago.
	So I can't exactly remember, but I don't think I ever talked to him again after that.
	You know who showed up in Stratford though, right?
	Connecticut?
	No.
	You know who showed up in Stratford and confronted the Soto family when they were trying to put on a charity race in the memory of their daughter and sister?
	No, I didn't know about that.
	That's all I think you told me about in that position.
	Well, but that's the type of thing that you love, right?
	No, I never came to do that.
	No.
	Just another uprooted tree.
	Yeah.
	You're just mixing things together.
	Do you want to answer the question?
	No, not just another uprooted tree.
	In fact, even as this trial has been going on, up.
	The Jones Army has been active, hasn't it?
	Objection is to the forum, Judge.
	Argument.
	I don't know what that means.
	Mr. Jones, do you remember referring to yourself in your broadcast as a precision-guided munition?
	That's a metaphor.
	Information Civilist mediates, you name it.
	Okay, it's an interesting nonviolent metaphor to choose.
	A precision-guided munition.
	You referred yourself as a precision-guided munition, right?
	I think you played me a clip of me saying that.
	And you lay yourself down on the barbed wire so the rest of your army can come in over the top, right?
	I think you're quoting me.
	And that army's been coming over the top right here in Waterbury this week, hasn't it?
	Objection, Judge.
	I don't know from what you speak.
	Okay.
	Didn't you go on the air just a couple of days ago and commend your audience members for vandalizing property around this courthouse? - Oh, I mean, if you consider...
	Is that a yes or no?
	No, I didn't commend people for vandalizing.
	You didn't?
	Okay.
	Let's pull up the exhibit 520.
	I don't think it's yet in evidence.
	You see a front of your shirt?
	I don't consider a sticker.
	I asked you where you see something on the screen.
	Yes, I see an InfoWars sticker.
	You see an InfoWars sticker on the street sign right outside this courthouse, correct?
	Looks like it.
	And you talked about that on air, didn't you?
	I believe you've just had it.
	I'd offer, Your Honor.
	And now, Your Honor, I'd like to offer 521. I don't know what it is, Judge.
	521, sir, you broadcast on air.
	Commending people for doing this, right?
	Just this last week?
	I mean, I do want to commend people.
	The First Amendment is under attack.
	Excuse me, sir.
	Excuse me.
	Excuse me.
	I want to commend them now.
	Okay.
	You did it on air, didn't you?
	I don't remember, but I commend them now.
	Okay.
	Well, why don't we see if we can refresh your recollection, Your Honor.
	Your Honor, this is a video.
	Do you have any objection to it?
	Your Honor, I hate to do this, but there's going to be an objection.
	I'm going to have to play it proper.
	Oh, this is on half the proper.
	This will be a broadcast of Mr. Jones earlier this week talking about this very thing on the show.
	Unedited?
	What do you mean unedited?
	This show is four hours.
	Unedited?
	You know, the best feature you made.
	This might avoid having a get-up.
	The representation is that it will be unedited with no objection.
	It will be unedited with no objection.
	This isn't provided.
	Go ahead.
	This is America.
	This is Texas.
	This is freedom.
	This is Christianity.
	This is resistance.
	My forebearers fought tyranny.
	They were incredible people.
	And I will live up to their measure.
	And you will as well.
	So don't ever, as dark as the hour is, and as out of control things are, don't you ever not realize how important you are and what you've done with your word of mouth and your action.
	And I'm talking to people that went to that puppet courthouse in Connecticut, putting four stickers up everywhere.
	We commend you.
	So we are in this public courthouse, yeah.
	Yes?
	That's what you're referring to?
	It's not mostly a peaceful protest where they burn down two million dollars, but that's good.
	But then conservatives put up stickers and we're bad.
	I know we all need to go to prison.
	You done?
	I'm going to excuse the jury for a moment.
	You're not?
	I don't think that's necessary.
	No, I'm going to excuse the jury for a moment.
	I'll see council on the side.
	I don't like that.
	I don't think it's somebody.
	May I have a moment with my client and a brief recess?
	Well, I don't want to be true.
	Right.
	Yeah.
	I just...
	He is who he is.
	We need you.
	I know.
	We can't show you.
	We want to answer your questions.
	No, I understand.
	They told me not to go to law.
	My impression of Mr. Jones is that he has been largely responsive to the questions we've had through argumentative and outbursts, and fewer than I had expected.
	This was startling.
	It may be a sign of fatigue.
	If the court wants to take an early afternoon break, I will remind him of your orders and the consequences.
	I'm talking to the court, not you guys.
	I mean, it's a, it's a...
	Why don't we go to 315?
	Thank you.
	OK.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	All righty, welcome back.
	Please take your seats.
	Thank you.
	Just so everyone can plan accordingly, we're going to take our, even though you've had an opportunity to get up and down, the staff has not, so we won't take our afternoon recess in about 15 minutes.
	Okay.
	Thank you.
	And every day, Mr. Tillens, That you've been doing stuff like we just saw.
	You've been encouraging your audience to give you money, right?
	Yes, like media.
	I raise money to stay on air.
	And the most recent website you've been encouraging your audience to donate at is 1776coin.com, right?
	Well, it's where you can buy silver coins.
	1776coin.com is the website, right?
	Yes.
	It's also known as PatriotsCollectibles.com, right?
	1776coin.com.
	And you are telling your audience that they need to go out right now to support you and buy a.999 silver coin with Teddy Roosevelt on it?
	Yes.
	How much are you offering that for right now?
	Like $130.
	$130 for a coin that was about the size of a quarter.
	No, it costs about $35 to make.
	I said, how big is it?
	No, it's the size of a silver dollar.
	It's a silver dollar.
	Okay, you say it costs $35 to make?
	Yeah.
	Okay, you pulled that out pretty quickly.
	So what's the margin?
	Sustained.
	What's the margin on that?
	How much do you say you're selling it for?
	Well, on sale it's $99, but it is a fundraiser point.
	Like when PBS sells a coffee cup for a hundred bucks.
	I asked you how much you're selling it for.
	You could get it on sale for $99.
	What are you selling it for?
	Did you say you were selling it for $99 earlier?
	Yeah, there's a sale too.
	You're running a sale on it.
	What's it full price?
	I just told you $130.
	Thank you.
	$130.
	But they can get it right now for how much?
	$99?
	The last time I checked a few days ago, there was a sale on it, yeah.
	Okay.
	And the cost to you is how much?
	It's like $35, depending on what it said to get it.
	It's like $35, something like that.
	Okay.
	So, if it's full price, you're talking about what?
	300% markup?
	And we tell the listeners it has next.
	We need the support.
	You tell the listeners what your cost is?
	Absolutely.
	They know.
	They're smart.
	Conservatives know all about silver and gold.
	Can you tell them that you get vaso-beat for four bucks?
	Did what?
	You sell a product called vaso-beat, don't you?
	No, vaso-beat.
	Thank you, vaso-beat.
	I'm sorry.
	I'm not a customer.
	Jackson, James, moves to strength.
	- VASO, you sell for how much? - I don't know.
	- Okay, your retail is, I'm sorry, your cost is $4, right? - I don't think it's more than that. - Okay.
	Tim Fruget would know that?
	Yes.
	If you want me, I can get those numbers for you.
	No, no.
	I think I can show them to you.
	Hold on one second.
	We'll get that for you in a second.
	They'll let me know when it's ready.
	Your testimony is that you tell your audience what the markup is on the supplements you sell. - Well, I think from time to time we've told people, yeah.
	What's the markup on the food buckets you sell?
	It's 35 to 40 percent.
	I know you have a text message that says 80. It's not the case.
	Okay.
	So when Tim Frugier told you that 70 percent of the money you're making off storable food is pure profit, So Tim Fruget, when he's texting you, is spreading disinformation?
	Objection, Josh.
	I saw in the last...
	Okay, well, I can't talk about the last thing.
	You know what the text is.
	- The next question is, was not correct. - But the vasovie markup, you don't know. - I don't have that in front of me. - Anyway, back to this point.
	This is what you've been asking your audience to give you money for this week, right?
	We actually started making these coins, those coins, six months ago.
	But what you're running right now, this week, is you've been talking about this trial.
	After you segment, you're setting them to 1776. Coin.com, right?
	Yes, that's where we sell the collectible coins for people that want to keep the show on the air.
	- Okay, and did you tell Brittany Paz about that revenue platform?
	- We advertised it on air, yeah.
	- Okay.
	Free Speech System, what was that?
	No, it's an outside platform, but it advertises on free speech systems.
	But you get a cut of what they sell, obviously.
	That's why you're pitching it?
	Yes.
	And what about 50%off.com?
	Do you have that one?
	No, that's not on the website.
	Do you have an interest in it?
	No.
	What about Prepare with Alex?
	That is a URL that links to preparewithalex.com, links to preparetoday.com.
	So I told you last time, it's a link, it's not a website.
	It has products for sale on it, prepare today?
	Yes.
	In other words, what you're saying, this idea of redundancy again, right?
	People can get to preparetoday.com by either going to prepare with Alex or prepare today, right?
	Prepare today.com is the actual website.
	Right.
	All preparewithalex.com is another URL that will take you there.
	Right.
	So if you type in preparewithalex.com, you automatically go to preparetoday.com, right?
	I believe so.
	And you sell stuff on that?
	No, another party sells the storeable foods there that they pay us advertising.
	Wait a second now.
	Are you saying that you don't get a cut of the products that are sold on preparetoday.com?
	I just said it pays us advertising.
	You said they pay you advertising.
	But isn't it true that you get a cut of whatever the sales are?
	Or maybe you don't know.
	I don't understand what you're saying.
	of course of course we get paid the money okay do we have that things will be Basil bee, excuse me.
	Yeah, just pull it to me, yes?
	Oh, let's pull it up in front of you, Mr. Johnson.
	And what exhibit is this?
	ID?
	Oh, it's ID.
	This is a demonstration, Your Honor, that was shown in opening.
	All aspects of it are in full, and so I would just ask to display it to the jury.
	If it has a number, I'd like to know it.
	This is a demonstrative example.
	Thank you, Mom.
	You can pull it up.
	Infowars store, that's your logo, right?
	Yes.
	You're familiar with this text message from Tim Fruget, emailed all the plugs to Drew, Dew, and all producers.
	The retail for VESOV will be $39.95 and sale for $19.95.
	Our cost is $4.
	I see that.
	Okay, and if you go down, if you just kind of back out of that, that's what you get, right, for $39.95 or $19-something.
	Same thing, another name sold on Fox News.
	is the same price.
	Say yes?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	But I believe that some of the bigger bottles like 10 bucks a bottle for us.
	And you just pay $4 for that?
	I think we're paying like $8 last time I checked, but that's what it says.
	And of course you tell your audience, hey, listen.
	We pay $4 for this, but we want you to give us $40 for it.
	Do you tell them that?
	Well, at least you sold for $19.
	Okay.
	Do you tell them, we pay $4 for this, but we're going to mark it up 400%?
	Yep.
	Can you just answer that?
	Mm-hmm.
	My audience is smart.
	They actually work for a living.
	They understand markup.
	They understand what we're doing.
	Oh, okay.
	All right.
	And why don't we talk about cryptocurrency?
	Okay.
	Because one of the ways that you encourage your audience to give you money is in cryptocurrency donations, right?
	Yes.
	And I think we have that page.
	And you have a page on your website that's just for cryptocurrency donations, right?
	Infowars.com forward slash crypto.
	Is that a little advertisement just there?
	Well, we're fighting the deep state.
	We need money.
	Okay.
	All right.
	And now I want to know if there's a clip for you on your show tonight.
	I want it.
	Objection moves to strike again.
	I'm sorry.
	When you turn around to look at the camera and talk, I can't hear you.
	I'm sorry.
	That will end up as a clip on your show tonight.
	Objection moves to strike.
	Your advertisement for your cryptocurrency page.
	You know, I mean, people want to keep us in the fight.
	So, I mean, I hope whoever the big whales are that have given us money before, keep doing it.
	We'll just keep minting money as you're in this courtroom.
	Let's move on.
	People care about the First Amendment.
	And in the cryptocurrency page, people can give you in Bitcoin, yes?
	Yes.
	Ethereum, right?
	Right?
	Yes.
	And it says support the info world, right?
	Yes.
	But there's nothing on that page that tells your audience that when they give you cryptocurrency, it goes directly into your personal account.
	Is there?
	Oh, I've told the listeners that.
	Mr. Jones, listen to my question.
	On the page, the crypto page, where you say support the info board, there's nothing on there that says that the crypto donations go directly into your personal account.
	Is there?
	And then directly into the company account.
	That's how crypto works.
	Do we have the page?
	516, oh, I don't think it's admitted yet.
	Take a look at your screen.
	I don't know the page.
	Okay, well, I need to admit it.
	Is that it?
	Yes.
	I'll offer it here.
	No objection, Judge, on that foundation.
	And that is exhibit what one?
	I believe it said 516. So worth it.
	This is it.
	Give Crypto, fund InfoWars.
	Sponsor us with Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, right?
	And then it gives you another of...
	I'm sorry, you can back out of that.
	It gives you all these different cryptocurrencies you can give, right?
	Yes.
	So just to be real clear, this is a yes or no.
	When somebody gives cryptocurrency over this website, it goes directly into your crypto wallet that you personally control.
	Yes or no?
	Yes.
	And when that happens, you have full and sole access to that asset, right?
	Yes.
	It's password protected.
	Yes.
	And earlier this year, in a number of donations, What million dollars in Bitcoin was donated through this page to you personally, correct?
	I think it was 9 million.
	9 million.
	And you cashed out about 5 million of that, right?
	No, that's when you deposed me.
	We've cashed all the $60,000 out and it's all been put into InfoWarship.
	Okay, so let's just get this real clear.
	So your sworn testimony to this jury and anybody else who may be interested is that that full amount that went to you personally I don't have the exact accounting, but do the math.
	There's 60,000 left in the wallet, which is public.
	Anybody can go look at it.
	It's all secret.
	The whole point of it is public.
	And so there's the wallet.
	And then that's how my IT folks set it up.
	That's how you do it.
	You've got your personal wallet.
	And then I put it in my private bank account.
	And then I put it into the company.
	And I think we put all the money I put in my account into free speech systems.
	I'm not allowed to say the rulings, but it's trying to shore it up.
	And then there's 60,000 left, hoping it goes back up, that we're waiting.
	But I don't think it's going to go back up for a while, and we're probably going to dump that out next week and put it into free speech systems.
	Just to wrap this up, your sworn testimony is that everything other than $60,000, that $8 million that you got, went into your personal account, and then you transferred into free speech systems.
	Yes or no?
	Yes, other than bonuses, $100,000 bonuses went to the IT people and some of the graphics crew.
	So they got $100,000.
	You got none of it yourself, is what you're saying?
	Yes, and it would be nice if we could put on evidence and block from it.
	I could probably get you those numbers if you like those.
	No, what I want you to do is offer sworn testimony that none of that money went to you.
	James, why don't we just replace the question?
	I got a new question for you.
	I just want to be crystal clear.
	None of that money ended up with you personally.
	Yes or no?
	Well, you'll say technically.
	Well, technically it went in my bank account, and then I put it into free speech.
	That's how it works.
	None of it remains in your personal possession.
	I'd have to do the exact accounting.
	I think it may be negative.
	I mean, I think I may put more money in.
	All right, Mr. Johnson.
	Well, Chris, you're trying to...
	Well, first of all...
	Mr. Matty.
	I think we can close that.
	Okay.
	We said about 315. - Okay.
	This is a good time.
	All right, so we will take the afternoon recess.
	We will resume at 3.30.
	Ron will collect your notepad.
	we'll continue to obey the rules of your conduct.
	All right, thank you.
	Good afternoon, everyone.
	Please be seated.
	We're ready to resume.
	Yes, you're welcome.
	Attorney Maddie, can you talk to Attorney Pattis about a good time to end today?
	You think in like 4.30 or?
	I would be done.
	I would expect within the So I was telling them, I was telling my colleagues during the break that I may not recall, I may not have further questions for Watts, because I'm trying to make for most of his time.
	If the court wants to finish with Jones tonight, that's fine.
	If the court, today rather, if the court would consider starting it tomorrow, it'll be quicker.
	I'll have a chance to think about it.
	Otherwise, I'm prepared to start, but I won't finish tonight, and there'll be a little bit of fun.
	Yeah, I'm not going to do myself here, right?
	It's been a long day.
	Okay.
	All right, so one of the speakers.
	Thank you.
	You want to just agree to end when I'm done?
	direct welcome back folks council stipulate that the entire panel has returned okay Yes, Your Honor.
	Attorney Pettis, yes.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	Yes.
	Please be seated.
	Whenever you're ready, Attorney Maddy.
	Mr. Jones.
	Is it correct that you've estimated your audience to be about 10% of the English-speaking world?
	I think at one time or another, 10% of the English-speaking world has probably tuned into my show or seen clips of it somewhere.
	So fair to say that in your view at least, at one point, 10% of the English-speaking world had been exposed to your content.
	Yes, and that's about 50 million, not 550 million.
	That doesn't exist.
	There's not that many English speakers in the world, your number, your expert.
	You know that that's actually not referring to people, that's referring to views.
	Do you know that?
	Well, my coverage of San Diego didn't have 50 million views.
	I'm going to strike that.
	Are you aware that this jury has seen how he did it, is that in In 2011 alone, there were 286 million page views on your website.
	But not on Sandy Hook.
	Mr. Jones, see if you can answer my question.
	Are you aware, and I'm going to strike that.
	It's striking.
	Are you aware that according to your own data, just in 2011 alone, and just on Infowars.com alone, you had 286 million page views.
	A page view is not a person.
	So is that a yes or a no?
	I haven't asked about people, I just have a page view, right?
	I'm not a computer statistician.
	Oh, okay.
	So, and the idea here for you and Adam is to grow your audience so you can make more money, right?
	No.
	So, you have expanded your audience year over year.
	Right?
	Since you started?
	No.
	After the thing I'm not allowed to talk about happened, the audience got a lot smaller.
	Mr. Strake?
	Sustained.
	Mr. Jones, let's see if we can just agree on this.
	Let's see if this is accurate.
	The more people who come to your website or see your stuff on social media, the more money you make.
	Yes?
	In a crude way, that's true, but not exactly.
	And every year in which you made claims about Sandy Hook, you were making more money.
	Yes?
	Jack, it's a little ambiguous.
	Let's go here over here.
	2012 to 2013, you made more money.
	Yes?
	I don't have the numbers in front of you, but I believe so, yes.
	2013 to 2014, you made more money.
	Yes?
	Yes.
	2014 to 2015 you made one.
	Yes.
	And so on.
	Yes?
	Yes, that's for the...
	Is that yes?
	That was globalism coming true.
	Is that yes?
	Yes, but Sandy Hook wasn't the driver of that.
	Stricken.
	And this is the time when you repeatedly, repeatedly, I did say that about him.
	And Robin Parker, you repeatedly, repeatedly, showed slow motion video of him walking up to a microphone to give a statement the evening after his daughter Emily was murdered, correct?
	Yes, and I'll apologize for that.
	Let me distract that, Your Honor.
	I think it's responsive.
	It's not.
	It's certain.
	And so you apologize for that?
	Many times.
	That's how you look, Mr. Jones.
	Let's do this.
	Can I just have a moment, Your Honor?
	Take your time.
	Thank you.
	Didn't you say that?
	Yes or no?
	I said I'm already finished apologizing.
	Didn't you say on your show last week, I'm not apologizing for anything.
	I'm right 99% of the time.
	Didn't you say that?
	Yes or no?
	Yes.
	And you showed this video of Robbie Parker over and over and over again, correct?
	Last week?
	No, during the years in which you did this, you showed a slowed down edited video of Robbie Parker time after time after time.
	Yes?
	It was a huge video on the internet.
	We covered it.
	Is that a yes?
	We showed the clip was on the internet.
	Now the clip that you showed was how long?
	I don't remember.
	You never once showed Robbie's statement that he gave about his daughter, did you?
	I believe we did.
	I mean, this is over 10 years.
	I don't remember.
	You had, from 2012 until now, show that full statement, correct?
	Yes or no?
	I don't think it's fair to say I didn't show it, because I don't know.
	Well, do you know or not?
	I don't know.
	Okay.
	Would Brittany Paz know?
	I mean, we...
	Would Brittany Paz know?
	I don't know.
	Whether you showed it or not, did you ever watch his full statement?
	I believe so.
	You do?
	You think you watched the full 15 minutes?
	No, I saw what I saw on the news and I saw the big internet.
	I'm asking you whether you watched the full statement, sir.
	I don't remember.
	We're going to watch it.
	It's Exhibit 2, Your Honor.
	Full exhibit.
	Full exhibit, Your Honor.
	Thank you.
	I assume he's going to come onto the microphones now and make a statement.
	It looks like the family is there and they're getting ready to come to the microphone.
	So we'll listen.
	Thank you.
	Okay.
	So my name is Robbie Parker.
	My family is one of the families that Lost a child yesterday in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings here in Connecticut.
	I've been contacted by so many people and agencies wanting to know how we're doing, and I just thought that this might be the best way to share those feelings with everybody.
	First of all, I'd really like to offer our deepest condolences to all the families This experience must be for you.
	And I want you to know that our family and our love and our support goes out to you as well.
	At this time, our thanks go out to so many people, so many friends and family and complete strangers who we don't know for all the love, condolences and support that you've given us.
	My daughter Emily would be one of the first ones to be standing and giving her love and support to all those victims.
	Because that's the type of person that she is.
	Not because of any parenting that my wife and I could have done, but because those are the gifts that were given to her by her Heavenly Father.
	As the deep pain begins to settle into our hearts, we find comfort She was always willing to try new things, other than food.
	She loved to use her talents to touch the lives of everyone that she came into contact with.
	She was an exceptional artist, and she always carried around her markers and pencils so that she never missed an opportunity to draw a picture or make a card for those around her.
	I can't count the number of times Who also just recently died of a tragic accident.
	Emily was a mentor to her two little sisters, in delighting in teaching them how to read, dance, and find the simple joys in life.
	Emily's laughter was infectious, and all those who had the pleasure to meet her would agree that this world is a better place because she has been in it.
	As we move on from what happened here, what happened to so many people, let it not turn into something that defines us.
	But something that inspires us to be better, to be more compassionate, and more humble people.
	Let us please keep the sentiments of love that we feel for our families, and the compassion that we feel for others, even complete strangers, and keep them with us at all times.
	Amen.
	Not just in times of sorrow and tragedy.
	And may we do this so that we can better all of our communities, in all of our cities, in all our states, so that we can make everyone, everywhere in this country feel safe.
	Thank you.
	I'd be happy to answer any questions as long as I see them to be within reason.
	I was leaving to work, and she woke up before I left.
	And I've actually been teaching her Portuguese, and so our last conversation was in Portuguese.
	She told me good morning and asked how I was doing and I said that I was doing well.
	She said that she loved me and I gave her a kiss and I was out the door.
	That's Robbie Parker and Mr. Jones.
	It is.
	That's the real Robbie Parker, isn't it?
	I mean, I said years ago, I thought San Diego had him.
	Robbie Parker's sitting right here.
	He's real, isn't he?
	He is.
	And for years, you put a target on his back, didn't you?
	Objection to the form of that judge.
	Well, I mean, I've said his name.
	It's true.
	I haven't said those people's names until they are.
	You put a target on his back, just like you Let's move on.
	These are real people.
	You know what, Mr. Jones?
	I think you just told him to move on.
	Just like all the Iraqis, but you liberals killed in love.
	It's just, you're unbelievable.
	You switch on emotions on and off when you want.
	It's just ambulance chasing.
	Why don't you show a little respect?
	Objection, Judge.
	I think that you get what you give to this courtroom.
	Objection.
	You have families in this courtroom here that lost children, Is this a struggle session?
	Are we in China?
	I've already said I'm sorry hundreds of times, and I'm done saying I'm sorry.
	I didn't regenerate this.
	I was the first person to say it.
	American gun owners didn't like being blamed for this, as the left did, so we rejected it mentally and said it must not be true.
	But I legitimately thought it might have been staged, and I stand by that, and I don't apologize for it.
	And don't apologize, Mr. Jones.
	Please don't apologize.
	No, I've already apologized to the parents over and over again.
	I don't apologize to you.
	Don't apologize to you.
	You're going to do it again.
	Objection, Judge.
	Objection.
	Objection.
	Objection argument.
	twice.
	It is, but I think there's one officer of the court and one witness and an officer of the court heard the attack.
	So, a lot of people don't, and I can't rule on your attorney's...
	Excuse me.
	I'm sorry.
	I'm waiting.
	I can't rule on your attorney's objection.
	I understand.
	You're talking, and he may have to...
	You're right.
	I'm sorry.
	I'm trying.
	Because there's going to be another Robbie Parker, isn't there?
	Objection, Judge.
	No.
	Sustained.
	There's going to be another.
	Objection.
	Can I get my questions out?
	When it's the same form, second time, the inference is, it's going to also be objectionable.
	I didn't say Parkland was fake.
	I didn't say Evaldi was.
	And no, I, okay, so that's a fact.
	What did you say about Aurora?
	Objection.
	Before this, what did you say about Aurora?
	I believe it was a real shooting, but he was in a mind control program, just like Theodore Kaczynski.
	Sorry.
	Are you objective to your client's answers, Attorney Pattis?
	Both the answers and the questions.
	This is a courtroom, not a strong answer.
	So here's what I'll tell you, Mr. Pattis.
	Okay.
	Yes, ma'am.
	You're in a court of law.
	You have to follow the rules as the attorneys do or official report, and they are accountable to me, and I will deal with them.
	However, while there are media in the room, this is not a press conference.
	This is not.
	Clearly not your show, and you need to respect the process.
	I understand.
	Whether you like it or not, you have to follow the words.
	I understand.
	So just take a breath, have a new order if you like, and wait for the next question.
	I believe there's another admonishment as to- Council, I'll see you on a sidebar.
	If I admonish anybody, it's gonna be both of you, okay?
	You're shouting over your client.
	You just have to stop.
	Okay, so let's get the next question and let's move forward.
	Mr. Johnson, there's going to be another man of shooting his couch. there's going to be another man of shooting his couch.
	Objection.
	One word basis.
	Hearsay, irrelevant, what is it?
	One word.
	Argumentative.
	Overruled.
	Are you saying I'm going to shoot people?
	Like, how do I know there's going to be another mass shooting?
	Like, it's my fault.
	People think I killed the kids.
	That's my answer to you.
	Let me see if I can ask my question again.
	Sure.
	Do you expect there's going to be another mass shooting?
	There's probably a little bit.
	And when there is, you're going to be ready to pounce, right?
	Objection?
	No.
	No?
	Relevance?
	All right.
	Why don't you look at your screen there, sir?
	Pull the 76, Mr. Jones, please.
	Did you say 76?
	Yes.
	Yes, that was 40.
	I'll put it.
	Pull it for everybody.
	This is your home page, right?
	Infowars.com?
	Uh, I can't, uh, blow that, please.
	Yes.
	This is Mikhail Gorbachev, right?
	He died about three weeks ago, didn't he?
	Yes.
	Why don't you pull up the right side of the page.
	A little bit bigger, please, just the part of the survey there.
	And you're asking your audience.
	It comes to your page to take a survey, aren't you?
	Correct?
	Yes, I didn't write the survey.
	And the survey is, what will be the most likely deep state false flag ahead of the midterms, right?
	Yes.
	What's the first option?
	Mass shooting, but I didn't write the poll.
	Excuse me, sir.
	Mass shooting?
	Yes.
	And so when the next mass shooting comes, you're already conditioning your audience.
	To believe that it's a fake staged event, aren't you?
	Objection.
	Well, false flag doesn't necessarily mean staged.
	It means they let it happen.
	How many people responded to this survey, sir?
	I don't know.
	I wasn't looking at it.
	But there's going to be a mass shooting.
	And you're inviting your audience, even now, even after all this, Argumentative.
	No.
	No, I didn't say Uvalde was staged.
	I sent the police to Denver 77 minutes.
	I don't know the others either.
	Power grid collapse, terror plot, bombing, COVID. Right.
	The US government said the Russians...
	It could be any of these, right, Mr. Jones?
	The US government said the Russians staged a false flag and struck Ukraine war, and I believe it.
	That's right, Your Honor.
	Yeah, they're real.
	So, Mr. Jones, whatever the next mass shooting strikes...
	We can be pretty sure what you're going to do, right?
	Objection?
	Speculative?
	Yes and no.
	I didn't write that poll, but I stand behind it.
	I've never seen that poll, but I think that's a reasonable question.
	All right, so we are going to end here for the day.
	Ron will collect your notepads.
	I know you're tired of hearing me say it, but it is just so important that you continue to make all reasonable efforts to make sure that you avoid any and all media coverage of this trial or anything, or anyone that is in any way, shape, or form related to it.
	Please be careful when you leave the courthouse to avoid anyone involved in the trial or any of the media.
	We will start again tomorrow at 10, so you'll be here around quarter of 10. And If there are any issues, which I hope there are not, we'll follow that very important and specific procedure I told you about with respect to the notes.
	So hopefully we'll have some better weather tomorrow.
	everyone has seen travels home and we will let the jury go and I will speak with counsel.
	Judge, are you adjourned or are you staying?
	No, I'm on the record.
	You can stay.
	I can do it.
	You want to do it in a sidebar or would you like to do it right here?
	Right here is fine, too.
	Okay.
	How are we going to avoid this problem tomorrow?
	Because I assume your client wants to...
	I'm not sure the problem is fine.
	I raised an objection.
	My adversary didn't stop for a ruling.
	He kept going.
	And I believe on this...
	All right.
	So, Attorney Fattis, the record will reflect that your client just kept giving answers quicker than you can get your objection out, pretty much.
	It is literally impossible to rule when the question is being answered before you even got your objection out.
	There's only so many times I can tell someone, don't answer a question when your attorney objects.
	But what I'm not going to have is what we just saw.
	So I don't know.
	I leave it in your capable hands to figure out a way And how do I do that when I can't even hear you because your client Is giving his answer through your objection.
	It is impossible.
	I cannot possibly...
	I would ask you to stop him from speaking, then, so that I can be heard, I think, the last four or five questions are argumentative, and I'll probably...
	You want me to stop your client from speaking?
	when there is an argument going on between me and Council 9 of objection and argumentative answers yes.
	Physically, you want me to stop him from speaking?
	I'm trying to be as polite as possible, and I've told him the record will affect how many times I've told him, and he tells me he understands.
	My record is clear, Judge.
	When counsel here are the professionals, I've made argumentative objections, and my adversary continued to raise his pitch tone, made appeals to the gallery, to the public, perhaps the press, back turned to my client, screaming, that's inappropriate in any courtroom.
	I don't care if my client's out there making Okay, so how about we do this tomorrow then?
	So I will have a zero-tolerance policy from now on with counsel, so you can expect a contempt hearing if anybody steps out of line.
	And Mr. Jones, same thing.
	So, sir, you've got to do a better job of following the courtroom rules, all right, with respect to your responses.
	I do not want to have a contempt hearing.
	I do not.
	I'm going to say Tomorrow will be another day, right?

▲